The absence of an announcement of hi-def versions is disturbing.

Why didn't this announcement take place concurrently with the DVD version? Why, Warner Bros., WHY!?

And WHEN the hi-def versions are announced, Warner Bros., at least provide a damn commentary on the disc, for goodness sakes.

That's all for now.

For neutral folks, here is a German annoucement for HDdvd

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=947278&highlight=Jesse

Remember Warner said they would have more titles released in Q4 than the 1st 3 quarters. I think bluray has had a good array of titles. For hddvd it has been disappointing. Could the lack of titles be because they soon will be supporting only one format. Quite possibly.

The absence of an announcement of hi-def versions is disturbing.

Why didn't this announcement take place concurrently with the DVD version? Why, Warner Bros., WHY!?

And WHEN the hi-def versions are announced, Warner Bros., at least provide a damn commentary on the disc, for goodness sakes.

That's all for now.

The problem is that nobody even knows this movie exists. I saw the trailer and it looks pretty good but as far as I know it never made to any theatres near me or most people. Its hard for Warner to make this a priority. I hope I get to see it someday though. Since I don't rent and don't buy SDs anymore if it doesnt hit BD then I might never get to watch it.

Remember Warner said they would have more titles released in Q4 than the 1st 3 quarters. I think bluray has had a good array of titles. For hddvd it has been disappointing. Could the lack of titles be because they soon will be supporting only one format. Quite possibly.

Please :rolleyes:

Here's what is most likely going to be the deal:

This is the barebones release...in a few months following, we will see a 2-disc special edition...at that time, Warner will release identical HD products.

Being that the film made absolutely NO money (a terrible, terrible shame), Warner will try to milk as much out of the dvd crowd, namely those who did see the movie and will get suckered into buying the film twice. By providing multiple releases, they stand to potentially ALMOST turn a profit. I just hope that double dipper comes soon, cuz I loved this movie.

Here's what is most likely going to be the deal:

This is the barebones release...in a few months following, we will see a 2-disc special edition...at that time, Warner will release identical HD products.

Being that the film made absolutely NO money (a terrible, terrible shame), Warner will try to milk as much out of the dvd crowd, namely those who did see the movie and will get suckered into buying the film twice. By providing multiple releases, they stand to potentially ALMOST turn a profit. I just hope that double dipper comes soon, cuz I loved this movie.


Not to mention Casey Affleck will possibly get a Supporting Actor nomination for Jesse James (although it may come as a Best Actor nom for Gone Baby Gone instead). Brad Pitt has also been mentioned as a possibility for a nom. If it wins Oscars it can influence the DVD/HD double dip.

If Casey Affleck doesn't win an Oscar this year it will be a shame. We got two top notch performances from him in 2007.

The problem is that nobody even knows this movie exists. I saw the trailer and it looks pretty good but as far as I know it never made to any theatres near me or most people.

It already had a theatrical release? I was expecting it to come out in the next couple months or so. Damn. I would've liked to have seen this. Same thing happened with Slipstream. Really really wanted to watch that in the theatres. But that's not gonna happen.

it literaly lasted a week in theatres here

I've watched the trailer on PS3 at least a half dozen times, it's just that good-looking. Can't wait to see the rest of the film in 1080p.

Remember Warner said they would have more titles released in Q4 than the 1st 3 quarters. I think bluray has had a good array of titles. For hddvd it has been disappointing. Could the lack of titles be because they soon will be supporting only one format. Quite possibly.

No

And there is the anouncement for the german BluRay release :)

cinefacts.de/blu_ray/db/coveranzeigen.php?id=40067

And there is the anouncement for the german BluRay release :)

cinefacts.de/blu_ray/db/coveranzeigen.php?id=40067

Excellent. I don't see a release date though.

Its still playing up here in Canada...but then again it was filmed here also so maybe we feel its just that special:D

Excellent. I don't see a release date though.

The release date is stated as february 29th. You can find it on the referring page cinefacts.de/blu_ray/termine/termine.php?monat=02&jahr=2008

The problem here in the US is that people's attention spans are too short to read a title this long. It would have done much better as "The Assassination of Jesse James", or better yet "JJ vs RF, the Assassination". :)

A title that long makes it sound like a History channel documentary.

the movie wasnt the type of movie to make money; it was an artsy/documentary type of movie, which also makes sense that the title was that long also, it was limited release, I think maybe 1 theater in St. Louis, MO aired it for like 3 weeks.

I personally liked it but it was long, and boring at times, and alot of people will hate the movie for that reason.

just my 2 cents

This is exactly the kind of movie that film elitists like us need to remind lesser people how much better we are than them.

Early Arrival for 'Assassination of Jesse James' Blu-ray (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Street_Date_Changes/Early_Arrival_for_Assassination_of_Jesse_James_Blu-ray/1375)

It wasn't planned for release until February 26, but Warner now says that the Blu-ray edition of 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' will hit stores three weeks earlier to get a jump on the film's mounting Oscar buzz.

The critically-acclaimed western (which just nabbed a Golden Globe nod for star Casey Affleck as well as a host of other early award recognition) will now make its Blu-ray bow on February 5.



Brandon

Early Arrival for 'Assassination of Jesse James' Blu-ray (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Street_Date_Changes/Early_Arrival_for_Assassination_of_Jesse_James_Blu-ray/1375)



Brandon

Thanks for the heads up. Glad to have confirmation of this change.

I'll be purchasing this along with Michael Clayton (Blu-ray) and American Gangster (3-Disc DVD). A superb month for releases.

I don't think this one even got to theaters in my area. I have watched the trailer and I'm definitely going to check this one out when it is released. I'll rent it and decide from there. I'm very curious about this film as I like westerns and I'll even rent the SD DVD just for the content if I have to if there is a long wait. The PQ on the trailer looks great!!

Please :rolleyes:

No

Doh!:eek:

Doh!:eek:

I was giggling too as I scrolled through the thread.

I can't wait for this release..I hope it lands Casey Affleck his first Oscar.

Any word on audio specs yet?

Apparently a 6-week delay for HD DVD on that one according to highdefdigest, yikes.

Apparently a 6-week delay for HD DVD on that one according to highdefdigest, yikes.

That is correct and it's noted in the above article I posted. The HD DVD originally was delayed 3 weeks behind the BD/DVD release. Now that the BD/DVD has been moved up 3 weeks to capitalize on the oscar buzz, that gap has been widened to a 6 week delay.

Brandon

I wanted to see this movie in the theater but never knew of the release date. Next thing I know I'm reading about release dates for DVD/HD release - I never knew it had even hit the theater yet!

High Def Digest has also said that both version will feature lossless audio (pcm on blu, truehd on hd-dvd), contrary to previously released info saying that they'd only have dd5.1 soundtracks. Since the dates have changed, maybe the audio specs have as well. Does anyone know what the real deal is on this?

High Def Digest has also said that both version will feature lossless audio (pcm on blu, truehd on hd-dvd), contrary to previously released info saying that they'd only have dd5.1 soundtracks. Since the dates have changed, maybe the audio specs have as well. Does anyone know what the real deal is on this?

Where did you see the lossess info at? I can't seem to find it.

Brandon

Right here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/High-Def_Disc_Packaging/First_Look:_Assassination_of_Jesse_James_Box_Art/1311

They're most likely mistaken, but it'd be really nice if it were true. Why In The Valley of Elah would get lossless and NOT this or Michael Clayton is beyond me.

One of my favourite movies of 2007 and I'm easily getting the blu-ray on the release date... and to think that a little while ago it looked like this might not even make it to HD, and now we're getting it in a few short WEEKS!!!! AWESOME.

Right here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/High-Def_Disc_Packaging/First_Look:_Assassination_of_Jesse_James_Box_Art/1311

They're most likely mistaken, but it'd be really nice if it were true. Why In The Valley of Elah would get lossless and NOT this or Michael Clayton is beyond me.

That's good news. If it was a mistake then they're sticking to it, as in the article today it says all specs are as "previously announced." So let's hope they're right.

Brandon

Warner has no excuse not to put lossless audio on every sing title. Regardless of budget or bank now that they're 'exclusive'. They're still semi-exclusive just the other way around for now.

If they're going blu they have to go full blu.

Maybe I'm reading wrong or not quite understanding what I was looking through on other websites. Is the Blu Ray going to have extras? I thought the HD DVD release is suppose to. Thanks!

Edit: Making Of Documentary is the extra. Someone posted the back side of the case on the HD DVD section.

It appears the title got switched to DVD in my queue. I deleted it and readded and it only says available Feb '08 for BD. This tells me they are unsure they will get it on release date.

The street date for the Blu-ray is the 5th of Feb but DVD PLANET has it listed along with the HD as the 26th. Will they fix this or are we all going to be waiting. If so, I'm canceling my order and I'll pick it up at Fry's.

http://www.dvdplanet.com/details.cfm?info=WBD020059

I see this too. I guess I will call them.

Edited to add:

I spoke with a CSR there, and he said they were expecting it on the 5th. I couldn't quite tell definitively whether or not that meant they would be shipping the Blu-ray Disc out on time. However, he said he would alert "upper management' when I informed him there were people considering canceling their pre-orders due to what he believed to be a Website error.

Thanks for checking. Sorry, I didn't see the earlier thread.

Nm

This title has already shipped for me, so it's definitely coming out next week.

HD DVD versus BD. Time will tell but I'm definitely picking this one up. Nice to see some westerns on HD.

Received my copy yesterday and what a letdown. The disc is 5.1 only -- not TrueHD, not even Dolby Digital Plus -- and there's no PCM track on this disc either. What's worse, the movie is beautifully shot but suffers from some noise in the transfer here and there. Not enough that I'd say it's a bad transfer, but enough that it distracted me from what I was watching in a few shots.

If these are kinds of discs Warner is going to show off for BD exclusivity it's not going to speak much for their efforts. :(

Received this yesterday and haven't had a chance to watch it. The box states Dolby Digital 5.1 for the audio.

dolby digital? wow..

This is exactly the kind of movie that film elitists like us need to remind lesser people how much better we are than them.

Amen :D

I didn't think for the audio track that it was suppose to be anything different for the BD. HD DVD gets dd Plus and some extras.

Maybe I'll give this a rental before I pull the trigger though.

If these are kinds of discs Warner is going to show off for BD exclusivity it's not going to speak much for their efforts. :(

Unfortunately this disc isn't one of their exclusive efforts, it's dual-format.

Brandon

Unfortunately this disc isn't one of their exclusive efforts, it's dual-format.

Whatever. Let me re-phrase then. If this BD version is any indication of what's to come from their future exclusive releases I would not be jumping up and down. I'd bet the HD-DVD DD+ soundtrack is better than the vanilla 5.1 here.

Yet Another DD - with love from Warner - let em' know how you feel - don't buy

You can continue to buy or not buy Warner Bros. releases on BD as you see fit, as it honestly doesn't bother me one way or the other. However, I would just like to point out that there is a long lead time to consider when getting discs to market, and you probably won't consistently see Warner Bros. take advantage of the better Blu-ray Disc specs until next year.

Whatever. Let me re-phrase then. If this BD version is any indication of what's to come from their future exclusive releases I would not be jumping up and down. I'd bet the HD-DVD DD+ soundtrack is better than the vanilla 5.1 here.

Doesn't Warners use the exact same bit-rate for the DD tracks on Blu-Ray and DD+ tracks on HD DVD (640 kb/s)? I would think the differences between the tracks would be pretty much non-existent to anyone other than someone really, really trying to find a difference.

Doesn't Warners use the exact same bit-rate for the DD tracks on Blu-Ray and DD+ tracks on HD DVD (640 kb/s)? I would think the differences between the tracks would be pretty much non-existent to anyone other than someone really, really trying to find a difference.

^ agreed. It's nice when companies go that extra step but I'm not gonna skip buying a movie just because it isn't perfect. Especially when it's just audio track complaints. The future releases from WB should be better than these dual releases are at the moment.

Any more opinions of the PQ for this one?

http://www.***************.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/140391/

Presented on only a BD25 disc, you could see many instances of bit starvation in the presentations. The picture looked somewhat flat on occasion with very little depth, especially on medium and long shots with some halo’s making an appearance. Black levels were also a little dark on occasion leaving poor shadow detail. I’m sure the compressionist did the best job he could with the bit budget allocated to him, but if a disc begs for higher disc capacity, this one certainly deserved it.

Another new release by Warner on BD-25. :mad:

BD-25 with 5.1 DD? No dice, Warner.

say thank you HD DVD :(

I'll watch a 720p rip from the sharing sites and buy it in the future when they release it properly.

I'll be reporting in with impressions as soon as my copy arrives from Amazon.ca. I was fortunate enough to have viewed a screening of this film at TIFF 07, so I believe I have an embedded impression of what this films' inherent presentation is like. Perhaps I'll upload some cam pictures, as well.

Counting the days until we get genuine BD releases from Warner.

Man, that's really unfortunate if the PQ has some issues - I'll wait to hear more opinions to see if they coincide with the *************** review...

Man, that's really unfortunate if the PQ has some issues - I'll wait to hear more opinions to see if they coincide with the *************** review...

yes, the cinematography is awesome
truly unbelievable

I can't wait for someone to release this movie properly

DD only on a 25gb. This is 100% confirmed? That's really sad.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews35/assassination_of_jesse_james_by_the_coward_robert_ford_blu-ray.htm

What an unfortunate set of circumstances we have presented to us here. I hope that Warner really does recall and re-issue this title.

IMAGE: 6/10 This is unbelievably infested with edge-enhancement - more than I have ever seen on a modern film release. I am shocked - especially from Warner. We have included a few examples below of the visible halos formed from the digital manipulations (Pitt often looks like a cardboard cut-out). This could quite possibly be an error and may eventually be recalled.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews35/jesse%20james%20brad%20pitt%20blu-ray/HF7Y9410.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews35/jesse%20james%20brad%20pitt%20blu-ray/edge%20enhancement%20on%20jesse%202.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews35/jesse%20james%20brad%20pitt%20blu-ray/HF7Y9420.jpg

Thanks but no thanks, Warner. They will not be getting my money for this one.

I really want to see this in the theater and was stoked for the BD. My local Blockbuster is getting about 10 SD DVDs and no BDs and a local Hollywood Video store isn't getting any SD DVDs at all let alone a BD.

With 14M worldwide made to date, and a 30M production budget, I think it will be some years before we can possibly even begin to entertain the idea of a special edition set.

No, I'm purchasing this disc with the comfort in mind that Warner will have the decency to offer a rebate with the inevitable re-issue. I can't restrain myself from making the purchase now; I love this movie too much. In the same breath, we simply can’t allow Warner to think we’re content with this release.

How exactly was The Fifth Element re-issue fiasco brought to fruition? I wasn't involved with the HDM community at the time.

How does the image stack up to the trailer that was on PSN? I thought the quality of the trailer was fine and couldn't wait to get the disc but now i'm doubtful.

Damn shame about the visual quality, seeing how it really is a beautifully shot film



I did think the PSN trailor looked incredible though





Warner is not getting my money for this

Are the BD and HD DVD disks identical? Or should I ask, will the "issues" that have been reported for the BD version exist on the HD version as well?

Just wondering, as I am format neutral. Although I will probably pick up the BD anyway because I'm excited about this release and don't really notice blemishes as well as some of you guys.

Curiously, the Beaver's take on the SD DVD is much more favourable towards the PQ:

"detail is exceptional and considering the, over 2 1/2 hour, film shares the DVD with no supplements (and fills almost 8 Gig of the disc) it is probably as strong as it will appear on Standard DVD. I saw no post-production manipulation. In fact digital noise is also very limited and, of course, the print is super clean."

The Beaver's caps for the DVD also look a lot cleaner - in fact very similar to the PQ on my Panasonic 50" screen when displaying the Blu-Ray disc (can't see any edge-enhancement on my display either. Edge-enhancement is one of my bug-bears, the worst I've seen is on the SD Gangs of New York and I see nothing like that on the Jesse James...Blu-Ray disc). It will be very interesting to hear what others have to say when they get hold of the Blu-Ray disc.

BD-25 with 5.1 DD? No dice, Warner.

say thank you HD DVD

Counting the days until we get genuine BD releases from Warner.

What color is the sky on your world? You are blaming HD DVD for a Blu-ray disc and "counting the days until you get a genuine BD release". I got news for you. Get used to this, because you have a genuine BD release with this disc.

How some of you people think just because Blu-ray has certain capability that Warner is going to use it when they can get by with a BD25 is beyond me. Warner did not choose Blu-ray because it was cheaper to produce than HD DVD, they chose BD for other reasons, and DESPITE the fact that it is more expensive. I guarantee you Warner will use low bit rate VC-1 and 640 kb/s Dolby Digital on as many BD releases as they can, even after they stop publishing on HD DVD.

Someone should have reminded some of you the old saying, be careful what you wish for.

LMAO @ people thinking there will be another edition of this movie any time soon (as in the next 5 years)


this is an extremely niche movie and was a box office flop, which is why I'm pissed this wasn't done well the first time

I'm seriously upset at Warner right now. This was by far their best film of the past 10 years and they did a crap job on the Blu-ray release.

We will see the true face of Warner once they become Blu-ray exclusive in June'2008.
No competition = throw frequent craps.

Dont be shy letting WB know what you think about this garbage. Write them.

Nice name Arpeggi, especially when you consider your join date.

Talk about a huge kick in the cod piece. I was soo looking forward to picking this up tomorrow after work and heading into 3 days off to lose myself in this film like i did when i saw it in Austin when it released.

This was by far my favorite film of '07 and one of my all time favorites. I hope they get it right and release a nice multidisc set to make up for this.

I will probably just save the money and buy the DVD and watch it on my Oppo instead.

Good to know the 'Beaver shared my reaction to the PQ. In certain shots there is so much noise it's unfathomable for a new Warner title. The sound is likewise limp.

Overall this is one of the worst "new release" transfers I've seen from either format. Unforgivable given the source material.

Looks like I'll be returning mine unopened to Amazon as it already shipped. I'll just rent it to see the horror for myself. A shame - I was looking forward to seeing the film.

i just was going to come here to complain about the PQ but guess people already beat me to it ha

i got mine from WHV on Fri and watched it tonight, very disappointed

i was really looking forward to this :(

Dang, I was looking forward to this. :(

I think we need a title change.

How about ?

The Assassination of Picture Quality by Co**** Warner Brothers.
The Applying of Edge Enhancement by Co**** Warner Brothers.

EE on a Warner title. Hmm. Quite surprising.

In fairness, I believe the third zoomed shot on DVD Beaver (blu review) showing the blue halo is actually a result of that visual distortion effect used in certain shots during the film (although the effect is less prominent in that shot). You can see this in other shots from the trailer - there is a similar glow to some of the edges (both blue and gold in color) - of course the trailer is not canonical, but certainly worth the comparison.

However, the first two zoomed captures on Beaver are a little troubling (as in, Warner messing too much with the disc), and I don't imagine those halos being a part of the original film (obviously not as I saw it at a theater), which would suggest maybe too much digital manipulation for the disc's release.

Interesting that bosque isn't seeing this on his 50" - I agree we'll have to hear more opinions, but I of course don't want to ignore the opinions of the website reviews. DVDTown didn't really mention anything about EE and seemed to focus more on discussing the stylistic effect.

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/assassination-of-jesse-james-by-the-coward-robert-ford-the/5604/2

DVDBEAVER has been a legendary site for DVD reviews especially in comparing various editions.

I wasn't complaining about their review or questioning DVDBeaver's integrity (if your post was directed at me, lgans), although I've clarified my comments to more clearly indicate that I agree that the first two zoomed captures definitely suggest ("suggest" might be too mild a word) that Warner did screw the image, and not that the reviewer messed up on the captures (as might have been interpreted due to an ambiguous sentence).

I'm a HUGE fan of DVDBeaver and value their comparisons so much when it comes to delving into my hobby of films on disc - but I was just pointing out that I think the third zoomed-in image might actually be due to the distortion effect and not disc EE. The other two definitely are not the stylized effect though.

Hope that makes my opinion more clear, in case it was misinterpreted. I don't even own the disc, so I don't want to denounce anyone else's opinions either. Looking forward to hearing what others think, at least those who are actually gonna buy it still...

Still awaiting receipt of my copy, but I note that the AVforums review of this title (http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php?showmediareview=9199)says: thankfully edge enhancement, blocking or noise are nowhere to be seen here. AVforums reviews are usually very good indeed. It's main criticism is that the picture appears 'flat' and lacks the three dimensionality of top transfers.

N.B. The reviewer lists his kit as follows: The projection is covered with a Sharp XVZ21000 1080p, DLP. Connected directly to the 868AVi via HDMI. HD is catered for with a custom built HD HTPC. Installed Toshiba HD-DVD and Pioneer Blu-Ray drive, connected to the Z21000 from a passively cooled Gigabyte2600xt via HDMI. The 2600xt provides full HD hardware decding through ATI Avivo HD. Audio from the HTPC is routed to the AX5i via optical for iTunes music. HD audio, Dolby+, Dolby True HD, DTS HD, PCM is routed via 8 external outs (from an X-Meridian with upgraded op-amps), into the 7.1 inputs of the AX5i. HD audio is decoded via Cyberlink's PowerDVD Ultra. The projector fires onto a self constructed 1.0 gain, 119" screen made of DHRScreens material.

I slightly disagree with some of the reviews listed in avplay.avforums.com thought most of them have been very authentic.

looks like i have to wait for this one. None of the many retail stores in my area have it in stock (including 3 best buys, 2 circuit city's, 3 targets, 1 walmart and 1 fry's). Guess it was not meant to be. I still really want to watch this movie, however i am disappointed to read all the negative feedback about lousy picture quality. The good news is that i will be able to play it in my laptop because it has less problems playing movies encoded with a lower bitrate. It does not play some fox and Sony titles well, or any disk that hits in the high 40's in some scenes. The video gets choppy whenever it gets above 40, and i can't figure out why and neither can the computer manufacturer, or cyberlink powerdvd lol. Have to use my standalones for any of the high bitrate disks, which is still pissing me off. I know this prolly isnt the right thread for this, but has anyone experienced a similar issues on a laptop (or desktop) with a bd rom drive?

I guarantee you Warner will use low bit rate VC-1 and 640 kb/s Dolby Digital on as many BD releases as they can, even after they stop publishing on HD DVD.

And I guarantee I won't be buying any gimped rubbish they think they can push. Edge enhancement infested, DD only, junk - take it back and try again Warner, you're usually better than this.

if the PQ is as bad as they say then this is pathetic on the part of Warner and they they release a version with w/o all this garbage

I suppose the UK release will be from the same transfer,due for release on 31/03/2008.

No BDs or SD DVDs at Target when I stopped this morning on the way to the office. They didn't have Crimson Tide either for that matter and nor is it listed on Netflix for the BD to rent. No biggie as there are obviously other retailers but they aren't open early in the morning to try before work so I'll stop by afterwards.

Picked this one up at my local Best Buy yesterday. Honestly, I have no idea why people are freaking out. IMHO I found the film's transfer to be above average, and not once was I distracted from the movie itself because of some kind of flaw. There is little "action," and the DD 5.1 did the job.

For a niche movie that cost $30M and made around $15M, this release seems more than adequate. The transfer takes nothing away from the film.

PQ 7/10

AQ 6/10

Picked this one up at my local Best Buy yesterday. Honestly, I have no idea why people are freaking out. IMHO I found the film's transfer to be above average, and not once was I distracted from the movie itself because of some kind of flaw. There is little "action," and the DD 5.1 did the job.

For a niche movie that cost $30M and made around $15M, this release seems more than adequate. The transfer takes nothing away from the film.

PQ 7/10

AQ 6/10

What size screen did you view it on?

The SD DVD may well suffice for me instead of spending the extra bucks. I can upconvert it.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=32248

Regarding the BD, something tells me though that I would not really be all that dissapointed on my Panny 37" display.

What size screen did you view it on?


Viewed it on my 34" CRT as well as a 46" LCD.

What color is the sky on your world? You are blaming HD DVD for a Blu-ray disc and "counting the days until you get a genuine BD release". I got news for you. Get used to this, because you have a genuine BD release with this disc.

How some of you people think just because Blu-ray has certain capability that Warner is going to use it when they can get by with a BD25 is beyond me. Warner did not choose Blu-ray because it was cheaper to produce than HD DVD, they chose BD for other reasons, and DESPITE the fact that it is more expensive. I guarantee you Warner will use low bit rate VC-1 and 640 kb/s Dolby Digital on as many BD releases as they can, even after they stop publishing on HD DVD.

Someone should have reminded some of you the old saying, be careful what you wish for.

I purchased this movie yesterday and have not watched it yet so this is based off of other releases and specs.

But if you think that Warner Blu Ray releases haven't been "crippled" by the specs of HD DVD you are sadly mistaken.

Why would Warner use more than 30GB for a release (movie/audio/extras) when you can't use if on both formats? Two seperate encodes costs more money.

This is all conjecture at the moment, IMHO we will see Warner do a better job on movies once they move Blu.

P.S. It doesn't matter WHY they switched either. The point that matters is they did.:D

^^^^^^^^^

Totally agree!

But if you think that Warner Blu Ray releases haven't been "crippled" by the specs of HD DVD you are sadly mistaken.

Why would Warner use more than 30GB for a release (movie/audio/extras) when you can't use if on both formats? Two seperate encodes costs more money.

So, the fact that this movie is on a 25gb BD and will be on a 30gb HD DVD means the transfer is crippled by HD DVD's specs? :rolleyes:

Maybe, just maybe, Warner doesn't care enough about this movie to give it a decent transfer. Battle of the Bulge was 9 minutes longer and had a fair amount of special features, yet it looks amazing on both formats, despite being limited to HD DVD's specs. In fact, that movie will never look better in a 1080p format.

Please site one example where it is absolutely clear that the Blu-ray release suffered because it was limited to HD DVD's size/bandwidth.

I'm not trying to threadcrap at all, but your statement is ridiculous.

I would agree that warner might just not care about "jesse james" and feel that a high bitrate transfer and lossless audio was worthless on a smaller title.

"Ridiculous" is you not thinking it is possible that HD DVD specs could be holding back the quality of a release.

Why do you think that Blu Ray has more lossless tracks? It is because Blu Ray has the extra room to put a lossless track with the movie. Don't kid yourself on this one. Do you honestly think it is because the studios "think" lossless is not needed for the consumer? Why do most of the Blu Ray exclusive studios pack lossless on EVERY one of their releases (pretty much 100% of the time).

Tell me why "transformers" doesn't have a lossless track.

And you know I can't give you an example of one blu ray release that "suffered" because of HD DVD's size/bandwidth. Personally, every release that doesn't have lossless to me suffered......

I would agree that warner might just not care about "jesse james" and feel that a high bitrate transfer and lossless audio was worthless on a smaller title.
good. ;)

"Ridiculous" is you not thinking it is possible that HD DVD specs could be holding back the quality of a release.
HD DVD's specs have never held back on the quality of the release.

Why do you think that Blu Ray has more lossless tracks? It is because Blu Ray has the extra room to put a lossless track with the movie. Don't kid yourself on this one. Do you honestly think it is because the studios "think" lossless is not needed for the consumer? Why do most of the Blu Ray exclusive studios pack lossless on EVERY one of their releases (pretty much 100% of the time).
No. It's marketing. Just like 1080p output (with the exception of 24hz).

Tell me why "transformers" doesn't have a lossless track.
Because Paramount probably doesn't care about "perceived" benefits of lossless over high-bitrate DD+. Can you honestly state, as a fact, that the DD+ track is "bad" because it's not TrueHD? Did the quality of the track suffer in any way? Last I checked, it won an award for best audio track on HDM.

And you know I can't give you an example of one blu ray release that "suffered" because of HD DVD's size/bandwidth.
You specifically said that "if you think that Warner Blu Ray releases haven't been "crippled" by the specs of HD DVD you are sadly mistaken."
And I stick by my stance that there is absolutely no evidence of such a situation. In terms of Jesse James, BD25 is the limiting factor, not HD30. It's convenient to blame HD DVD, but it's unfounded.


Personally, every release that doesn't have lossless to me suffered......

But that has nothing to do with HD DVD specs crippling Blu-ray releases...

I respect that you want lossless on every release. If it's there, I'm happy too. But I'm not going to refuse to buy a title on either format because it only has DD+ 1.5mbps, and I'm not going to claim that the release is crippled.

My point is, you can't blame HD DVD for the decisions a studio makes, especially when the end product is on BD25 and HD30 for each respective format.

Warner has managed to get longer movies onto 30gb HD DVD discs with lossless audio and a smattering of special features and excelleing transfers.

Blaming this lackluster BD title on the limitations of HD DVD is ridiculous.

Plenty of us do believe these releases have been crippled by the specs of the HD DVD release. Your opinion is surely respected but I'm unsure many would agree with you!

Plenty of us do believe these releases have been crippled by the specs of the HD DVD release. Your opinion is surely respected but I'm unsure many would agree with you!

+1

robertc88 and patrick99,

please, cite specific examples where HD DVD specs crippled Blu-ray releases. Name two titles. No, just one. Opinion and fact are two very different things.

I'll make my claim clear: Warner has never crippled a Blu-ray release in order to meet the specifications of HD DVD.

Please site one example where it is absolutely clear that the Blu-ray release suffered because it was limited to HD DVD's size/bandwidth.



The kind of proof that you are asking for requires information that is not publicly available.

Can you prove that Warner has never crippled a BD release based on the HD DVD specs?

SomethingMore,

Can we agree to disagree?

You know there is an HD DVD forum right?

AJP69 has posted caps from this movie in the Blu-Ray movie screen shot thread. Excuse me for mentioning it but, after you've looked at the caps do you still feel the PQ is shoddy ? I'd be very interested to hear.

Again, after watching the movie twice, I found the picture quality to be above average. Now I'm sure that no one cares about some random (new member) opinion, but I just feel that a few are being overly critical.

Of course, this wouldn't be AVS if you guys weren't overly critical;)


Any actual FANS of the movie...you won't be disappointed. For the PQ & AQ junkies, you'll probably prefer to skip this one.

Again, after watching the movie twice, I found the picture quality to be above average. Now I'm sure that no one cares about some random (new member) opinion, but I just feel that a few are being overly critical.

Of course, this wouldn't be AVS if you guys weren't overly critical;)


Any actual FANS of the movie...you won't be disappointed. For the PQ & AQ junkies, you'll probably prefer to skip this one.

So what you're saying is: anyone who won't be watching this on a 40" screen from three feet away and/or does not have an intense hatred for most/all of Warner's HDM releases should be happy with this release?

Sounds good to me. I've been wanting to see this film for a while, though someone did spoil it for me by revealing that...
apparently, Jesse James dies at some point in the film. At least I don't know who did it, yet.

Can we agree to disagree?

My argument isn't about whether or not we agree. It's not a matter of opinion. You said that HD DVD's specs have crippled the quality of Blu-ray titles, yet you can't provide an example where this is the case.

You know there is an HD DVD forum right?
oh, please...
You know there is an "All hail Blu-ray! Down with HD DVD (http://forum.blu-ray.com/)" forum right?

this place is for civil discussion of the pros and cons of the format. It has nothing to do with HD DVD, yet people like you choose to throw the blame in HD DVD's direction whenever a title doesn't meet your expectations (which never has anything to do with limited specs of one format).

But yes...
Let's agree to disagree...

So what you're saying is: anyone who won't be watching this on a 40" screen from three feet away and/or does not have an intense hatred for most/all of Warner's HDM releases should be happy with this release?

Sounds good to me. I've been wanting to see this film for a while, though someone did spoil it for me by revealing that...
apparently, Jesse James dies at some point in the film. At least I don't know who did it, yet.


Basically, yes. If you're an average consumer who has an appreciation for high def material compared to standard, you will very much enjoy this release. No regrets here!:)

AJP69 has posted caps from this movie in the Blu-Ray movie screen shot thread. Excuse me for mentioning it but, after you've looked at the caps do you still feel the PQ is shoddy ? I'd be very interested to hear.

It has that Ocean's 13 look to the PQ. If I wasnt told those caps were from BD I wouldnt know they were from an HD source at all.

Did the director use some sort of filter to make this look like an 'old western'? Because slides of dialogue wouldn't seem out of place if that's what it looks like. That has to be the directors intent.

From what I saw of the screenshots, I'd say most of you are overstating the PQ problems. While not great, it looks to me like an obvious upgrade over SD.

My argument isn't about whether or not we agree. It's not a matter of opinion. You said that HD DVD's specs have crippled the quality of Blu-ray titles, yet you can't provide an example where this is the case.


Lets look at some numbers.

Warner Blu Ray releases

101 total titles

53 on BD25
48 on BD50

Warner HD DVD releases

114 total titles

106 on HD30
8 on HD15

So Warner releases 52% of their Blu Ray releases on BD25 (smallest for Blu) and 93% on HD30(largest for HD DVD). We all know that Waner has favored HD DVD from the beginning. The fact that they would put lossless on Superman and Happy Feet then not release the Matrix or Batman Begins on Blu Ray proves that point.

As far as "crippled" being used, maybe that was a harsh, let me try again.

"the majority of Warner titles, in my opinion, were optimized to fit on an HD30 rather than utilizing the extra space on a Blu Ray BD50 dual layer disc where lossless, HD extras and interactivity will fit without compromising picture or sound quality.":D

Is that better for you?

BTW do you happen to own a Blu Ray player?

Lets look at some numbers.
I snipped the numbers to shorten the post. Interesting indeed. :)

The fact that they would put lossless on Superman and Happy Feet
That has nothing to do with the limitation of HD DVD specs. You're mixing two different issues. But, I can't say that I know why they left lossless of of those titles. The fact that they ARE on the HD DVDs proves that it wasn't the HD DVD spec that caused the problem for them. Sorry, but this argument doesn't work.

then not release the Matrix or Batman Begins on Blu Ray proves that point.
And that is 100% because Blu-ray machines could not handle the same specs as HD DVD at the time. Again... Blu-ray was its own limiting factor, not HD DVD.


"the majority of Warner titles, in my opinion, were optimized to fit on an HD30 rather than utilizing the extra space on a Blu Ray BD50 dual layer disc where lossless, HD extras and interactivity will fit without compromising picture or sound quality.":D
This is where you are dead wrong. Clearly, based on the numbers you provided, the majority of Warner titles were optimized for BD25, leaving room for extras and interactivity on the HD30, which they could take advantage of, knowing their customers could use it. At the time, if I'm not mistaken, Warner was having a hard time 'getting in line' to get BD50's. Why should they try to create titles to a spec that they weren't able to manufacture a lot of discs at? They would have had to delay the releases significantly, thus hindering their profits.

Is that better for you?
sure. ;) My problem with Warner, based on your numbers, is that they truly haven't been optimizing their releases for HD30. If they were, they would have been forced to use BD50 discs to achieve the desired result. Why should I be forced to buy a title on HD30 when I know that the extra 5gb could have been used for a lossless track in Aramaic? :D

BTW do you happen to own a Blu Ray player?
That's entirely irrelevant, but no. I will within a few months when I pick up the LG dual-format drive for my HTPC (it's the last component I need...). That doesn't change the fact that Warner optimizes their titles for BD25.

Lets look at some numbers.

Warner Blu Ray releases

101 total titles

53 on BD25
48 on BD50

Warner HD DVD releases

114 total titles

106 on HD30
8 on HD15

So Warner releases 52% of their Blu Ray releases on BD25 (smallest for Blu) and 93% on HD30(largest for HD DVD). We all know that Waner has favored HD DVD from the beginning. The fact that they would put lossless on Superman and Happy Feet then not release the Matrix or Batman Begins on Blu Ray proves that point.

As far as "crippled" being used, maybe that was a harsh, let me try again.

"the majority of Warner titles, in my opinion, were optimized to fit on an HD30 rather than utilizing the extra space on a Blu Ray BD50 dual layer disc where lossless, HD extras and interactivity will fit without compromising picture or sound quality.":D

Is that better for you?

BTW do you happen to own a Blu Ray player?

...and this has what to do with the thread title ? They argue disc specs all day long but when it comes to the actual movies they keep a strict distance from anything resembling a comment or opinion.

I guess we will see. What happens when Warner goes Blu Ray exclusive(you aren't one of those that think it will change are you?)?

Will we see 52% of Warner releases on a BD25? Will we see more than 30% with lossless?

Wait about 4 months and we will find out.

By the way, what kind of Blu Ray player do you have?

...and this has what to do with the thread title ? They argue disc specs all day long but when it comes to the actual movies they keep a strict distance from anything resembling a comment or opinion.

You could try reading the thread, but we were discussing the quality of "jesse james", it's application of EE by Warner and lack of lossless audio.

You could try reading the thread, but we were discussing the quality of "jesse james", it's application of EE by Warner and lack of lossless audio.

Yes of course you were. I found your description of the application of EE by Warner on the disc illuminating - having said that, I can't seem to find a single word about it as regards the Jesse James disc :confused:

Gosh, no matter what some people will never see it. It's obvious Warner has been limiting their BD titles with HD-DVD specs. In the 'old days' even a compressionist from Warner pretty much said that.

With the exception of Lionsgate every single US BD release from an exclusive studios has lossless tracks: that pretty much puts an end to it. I'd say not even 10% of exclusive HD-DVD discs have lossless audio tracks.


Back on topic, it's a shame what Warner did to 'Jesse James', it was one of my most eagerly waited titles.

Back on topic, it's a shame what Warner did to 'Jesse James', it was one of my most eagerly waited titles.

What did they "do" to it ? - assuming you actually have a copy of the Blu-Ray disc to be able to comment.

Honestly, I trust that Warner will use BD50 often enough (replication is far more widespread than it was in the 'early days'), but I can assure you that they'll use BD25 as often as they can to cut costs on titles that they themselves aren't excited to release. But again, that has absolutely nothing to do with limiting the final product to HD DVD specs.

AlexBC,
The only way to prove that that is true is to find a Warner release that meets the following criteria:
HD DVD Version: HD30; video bitrate maxed out; x number of special features and audio options; less than 2gb unused space
Blu Ray Version: BD50; video bitrate never peak higher than HD DVD's max; exact same special features and audio options as HD DVD; over 20gb unused space

Find a title that meets those basic requirements and has picture quality that is clearly "bad" because of the encode, not the source or original master.

To prove me wrong, all you need is one title. :D

It's very odd - mention the specific Blu-Ray disc which the thread itself is discussing and members such as Alex and phansson go eerily silent ;) - they are probably out on the streets right now trying to buy a copy so as to play it and say "how poor" ;) it is.

Can anyone shed some light on why Warner hates this movie so much? People continually say they didn’t commit the time and money on the Blu release due to a poor box office return. That then begs the question how is a movie suppose to make any money if it isn’t supported? I live in the Cleveland area and have seven theaters within fifteen minutes of my home, not a one of which ran the film. The theatres lucky enough to have received the movie ran it for as few as seven days in some instances. No **** the movie underperformed Warner, it was never IN the theatre to being with! Then they release this garbage ass blu ray because they feel it won’t return their investment, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So what’s up? Why is Warner doing everything in it’s power to burry this movie?

I wouldn't exactly call it "garbage ass". I received this Blu-Ray yesterday from Netflix (shock horror) and was not disappointed with the film visually. It certainly looked HD to me, despite not having that 3D pop. What's more important to me is that it felt authentic.

One thing is for sure, i will be buying this when i get the chance.

It's very odd - mention the specific Blu-Ray disc which the thread itself is discussing and members such as Alex and phansson go eerily silent ;) - they are probably out on the streets right now trying to buy a copy so as to play it and say "how poor" ;) it is.

I finally sat down to watch "the assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford". I can say that I really enjoyed it. Nice blind buy. Not much action but great characters and acting was at times spectacular. I was not really familiar with the Robert Ford side of Jesse James so it was really interesting to me.

Overall the picture quality wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. The movie was soft in some places but overall you could definitely tell it was HD. I think that the majority of the soft shots were directors intent . Didn't notice a "huge" amount of EE. Small amounts here and there, but overall not enough to distract me from the movie (there should be none by the way).

PQ 4/5

Wow, it would have been nice for this movie to have a lossless track (that will get everyone pumped up). Very musical soundtrack which could have benefited from a better treatment than plain old DD.

AQ 4/5

This still doesn't change my view that it could have been better with a BD50 high bitrate and lossless audio.:D

i watched this tonite. rented from netflix. i didnt find the pq to be bad. i the movie was really interesting and my girlfriend and i enjoyed it.. it didnt seem as long as it is. people are blowing the pq problems way out of proportion. it looked much better than a standard definition release but its not at the top of the picture quality tier or anything. also, i encourage viewers to watch the extras with the jesse james story. it was well done.

I'm going to rent the SD DVD which is what is most available to me at this point. I can upconvert it and see what I think about it and also just try 480p.

The other issues are sound and obviously the content. I just may feel this would be something I would come back to regardless of the quality of the BD for sound and picture.

Keep the opinions coming and thanks! I won't venture back into the HD DVD/BD discussion but I would want the higher bitrate and lossless audio also regardless. :)

What did they "do" to it ? - assuming you actually have a copy of the Blu-Ray disc to be able to comment.

Humm... no lossless audio track :rolleyes:

That's what they did 'do' to it.

Since I started collecting BDs, I don't buy movies without lossless audio tracks (I vote with my wallet as they say).

So, I don't have the disc nor do I need to have to show my displease with the lack of a lossless audio track. I don't recall having addressed any comment to PQ.

AlexBC,
The only way to prove that that is true is to find a Warner release that meets the following criteria:
HD DVD Version: HD30; video bitrate maxed out; x number of special features and audio options; less than 2gb unused space
Blu Ray Version: BD50; video bitrate never peak higher than HD DVD's max; exact same special features and audio options as HD DVD; over 20gb unused space

Find a title that meets those basic requirements and has picture quality that is clearly "bad" because of the encode, not the source or original master.

To prove me wrong, all you need is one title. :D

Well SomethingMore I don't need to prove anything to you, you can think whatever you want. Neither you're gonna be able to convince me otherwise.

But since what you ask is pretty simple yet ridiculous I'll give you the one title you want: Enter The Dragon, it's a pretty well known issue that it has a problematic encoding.

With the exception of that one, I say ridiculous because we can't really tell if it's the enconding or the master that's lacking when we see the usual Warner's low bitrate encoding without having access to the master itself.

So I won't be able to 'prove' to you that they're lacking, nor you'd be able to prove they're not lacking. Moot point.


But you conviniently lef out of you 'proof setup' something pretty objective that is able to prove my point, and that is the lack of lossless tracks, and that is even more important to me than PQ and I'm sure it is to a lot of folks too as you can read on the multiple "I rank AQ over PQ"/"HD is more about the AQ than it's about PQ to me" threads over here.

With that in mind I could give you tons of examples:

Ocean's 13 (one could even question the encode on this one too)
Superman: The Movie
Unforgiven
Ocean's 13
The Aviator
The Wild Bunch
The Searchers
Bullit
T3

and lots of others.

Some folks are picking this up at Hastings for $19.99. Probably a glitch in their computers but if you are in the market for this and have that resource nearby, you may want to try.

Well SomethingMore I don't need to prove anything to you, you can think whatever you want. Neither you're gonna be able to convince me otherwise.
See, the problem is that your "proof" is just based on speculation and nothing else. You want to think that such titles exist, but you can't actually name one. Well, except...

But since what you ask is pretty simple yet ridiculous I'll give you the one title you want: Enter The Dragon, it's a pretty well known issue that it has a problematic encoding.
Well, I just read a bunch of reviews and the only complaints are master-related (specks of dirt, etc.) I'm sorry, but the minuscule problems with this title have nothing to do with the encode.

With the exception of that one, I say ridiculous because we can't really tell if it's the enconding or the master that's lacking when we see the usual Warner's low bitrate encoding without having access to the master itself.
I disagree. "Master" problems and "Encoding" problems are usually quite different (ie. Masters don't have macroblocking... well, I sure hope not :))

But you conviniently lef out of you 'proof setup' something pretty objective that is able to prove my point, and that is the lack of lossless tracks, and that is even more important to me than PQ and I'm sure it is to a lot of folks too as you can read on the multiple "I rank AQ over PQ"/"HD is more about the AQ than it's about PQ to me" threads over here.
I'm not trying to debate the "value" of lossless tracks, but Warner has made it clear that they do not intend to use them on every single release. That's a choice they've made that has nothing to do with limited specs.

With that in mind I could give you tons of examples:
Ocean's 13 (one could even question the encode on this one too)
Superman: The Movie
Unforgiven
Ocean's 13
The Aviator
The Wild Bunch
The Searchers
Bullit
T3
and lots of others.
I bet that, if you could get a straight answer directly from Warner, they'd tell you that they didn't feel a lossless track would be beneficial to those titles. Whether or not they are right is entirely subjective, but again, it has nothing to do with whether or not the lossless track would fit on an HD30 disc.

As for Ocean's 13... blame Steven Soderbergh for his unique style of directing/cinematography. You can complain all you want that the transfer sucks, but it looks just like it did in the theatre.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding confrontational, but I just see absolutely no reason why Warner would limit the specs on one version if there were any benefit to do completely separate encodes. A few early Warner titles had separate encodes and the difference was virtually indistinguishable. In fact, the HD DVD of Training Day had the extra TrueHD track that was not available on the BD due to... space limitations. hmm.

I'm just trying to say this:
Enjoy the releases for what they are. If the PQ is fantastic, give credit where credit is due. Likewise for "bad" PQ. But don't blame HD DVD, as it's completely unfounded. Innocent before proven guilty, right?

Somethingmore,

I have an idea, why don't you beat a dead horse for a little while.

If you notice, I am not the only one that thinks without HD DVD, Blu Ray releases from Warner would get a little more "love".

As I have stated before, everything you and I say at this point is speculation.

You can't provide me a title that proves your point.
I can't provide you a title that proves my point.

If you notice, I am not the only one that thinks without HD DVD, Blu Ray releases from Warner would get a little more "love".





You are definitely not the only one who thinks this.

P.S. This was just posted by thedigitalbits. Wow doesn't that sound familiar. No more titles released on Blu Ray without Lossless audio? Wow, I have heard that somewhere before......

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Posted at Bluray.com. Speaking of audio, Warner has heard your cries, and they will start releasing all high definition titles with lossless audio. Obviously, the switch to Blu-ray exclusivity makes this move easier, as the format has much more storage and bandwidth.

phansson,
Every single title released by Warner proves my point. That's why you can't provide one that doesn't. jeez...
Just because you "think" warner has crippled their releases on BD, doesn't make it so. I "think" that the world will end in 5 years. I must be right! Go me!

edit: the quote you posted wasn't from Bill, so I've removed his name from the following.

That person is spinning that news just like he always does. A Warner exec unofficially stated that they will try to include lossless more often to appease the people who have been complaining. Don't get me wrong, if Warner has a policy of lossless audio on every release going forward, that's awesome! Even I'm excited for that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with HD DVD. Look at all of Warner's "no lossless" releases. Look at the bitrates, since that's what you love so much. ALL of them still have "room" for lossless, even according to the HD DVD spec.

Saying this release is sub par due to HD DVD is ridiculous.

I'll just point at Troy DC to end any debate about that.

The reason the transfer is soft is simple, DIRECTOR'S INTENT.

I unlike most of you, watched this movie in the theater, I noticed it looked almost fuzzy at the theater. After viewing the Blu Ray, it wasn't the theater I was in, it was the film itself.

Its just how it was meant to look, I'm sorry if that disappoints many of you.

Now, because it was inherently soft, it appears, on my setup anyway, that WB tried to sharpen the look with a little Edge Enhancement, but that is just them buying into the fact that everything has to pop.

But I only noticed EE in a few scenes, so I won't crucify WB too much for that.

But I will defend the softness, because as I said before, from watching it in the theater, that is exactly what its supposed to look like.

They had this one marked wrong at $19.99 (I'm assuming since the sign read $29.99) locally so I picked it up.

ALL of them still have "room" for lossless, even according to the HD DVD spec.


Only if you are willing to give up higher peaks in the video rates. BD does not have this deficiency. If the video of HD DVD peaks around 30Mbps there is no more room for lossless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats


It's not a capacity issue. It's a bandwidth issue.

Warner has the liberty to do separate encodes but they ain't doing it. With their recent announcement they need not do identical encodes. If they still do it then put the blame on them and NOT on the formats.

Mike,

Thanks for posting your impressions about the PQ of this BD. I'm still on the fence but probably more so because I'm unsure if the content is something I'd come back to. That is always my main priority as I don't want a dust collector. Learned some lessons with SD DVD.

Keep the opinions coming folks. Much obliged!

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1306/assassinationofjessejames.html

3 stars for PQ

Since I started collecting BDs, I don't buy movies without lossless audio tracks (I vote with my wallet as they say).

so you didnt miss out much on Paramount switching then :D

But since what you ask is pretty simple yet ridiculous I'll give you the one title you want: Enter The Dragon, it's a pretty well known issue that it has a problematic encoding.See this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=967857 -- it has a horizontally filtered high-def master which exposes itself as vertical stair stepping. (The thread title is wrong... it's not related to 1080i, and it isn't 100% limited to Warner.) So, it's not 'problematic encoding.'

So I'm down to a murky SD DVD counterpart. Hopefully I'm not completely turned off but I need to see this for content before I do anything with a BD purchase.

So I'm down to a murky SD DVD counterpart. Hopefully I'm not completely turned off but I need to see this for content before I do anything with a BD purchase.

Why don't you just rent the BD? Wouldn't that be the best way to determine if it's worth buying?

Long wait through netflix and local video stores don't even have it. I'm down to the SD DVD for content as I really want to check this out. I guess that will at least tell me if I even want to pursue the BD.

so you didnt miss out much on Paramount switching then :D

Actually I do, as they were just about to start releasing with lossless audio: Blades Of Glory, Tup Gun, Jack Ryan pack all had been annouced with PCM tracks.

Every single title released by Warner proves my point. That's why you can't provide one that doesn't. jeez....

Only in your mind. Because every single title proves the opposite in my opinion (and in the opinion of most of the other folks here), since they never made an optimized for 50gb, 50mbps banwith release.


Just because you "think" warner has crippled their releases on BD, doesn't make it so. I "think" that the world will end in 5 years. I must be right! Go me!.

Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it so too.

Haven't you figured it out it yet?. If you say we can't prove our point, neither can you. It's pointless to go on with this.


edit: the quote you posted wasn't from Bill, so I've removed his name from the following.



See, the problem is that your "proof" is just based on speculation and nothing else.!.

Again, so is yours.


I disagree. "Master" problems and "Encoding" problems are usually quite different (ie. Masters don't have macroblocking... well, I sure hope not :)).

But lots of Warner titles do.



I'm not trying to debate the "value" of lossless tracks, but Warner has made it clear that they do not intend to use them on every single release. That's a choice they've made that has nothing to do with limited specs.

It has everything to do with it, as all the HD-DVDs I mentioned have over 28gb used.


I bet that, if you could get a straight answer directly from Warner, they'd tell you that they didn't feel a lossless track would be beneficial to those titles. Whether or not they are right is entirely subjective, but again, it has nothing to do with whether or not the lossless track would fit on an HD30 disc.

Of course they would say that. Afterall HD-DVD was also a WB product.

Only if you are willing to give up higher peaks in the video rates. BD does not have this deficiency. If the video of HD DVD peaks around 30Mbps there is no more room for lossless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats


It's not a capacity issue. It's a bandwidth issue.

That's right, and as I mentioned before. Lots of Warner titles are are filled up to the border and don't have lossless tracks.

Many that do have, could arguably have much better encodes. Blood Diamond, Superman Returns, The Departed and many others.

What a load of 'willy-waving' crap this thread has descended into!!

The Video: Sizing Up the Picture

The Blu-ray edition of 'The Assassination of Jesse James' is presented with a steady 1080p/VC-1 transfer that does the intended look of the film justice -- especially when compared to its murky, standard DVD counterpart. You may find yourself underwhelmed at first as there isn't much eye candy to be had here. Colors are muted and draped in sepia overtones that amp up the tone, but dull the pop of the picture. Black levels are deep, but darkness often functions as an impenetrable cloak that hides the intricacies of the nighttime set pieces. Detail is incredibly revealing at times, but intentional camera techniques leave many shots soft, unfocused, or distinctly warped.

Even so, I would have given the video a much higher score based on its faithfulness to the filmmakers' intentions if the transfer wasn't hindered by several technical issues. First off, Warner has bizarrely crammed the 160-minute film onto a 25GB single-layer disc that simply leaves the transfer out in the cold. Compression issues continually creep into the image and I found myself confused by the lazy presentation. It doesn't help that the transfer's contrast levels are fairly average, leaving the film's beautiful cinematography looking like a flat, uninspiring series of still photographs. To top it all off, blacks sometimes crushed, whites randomly bloomed, and noise intruded on more than one occasion.

Worst of all, I couldn't take my eyes of a single flaw that evolved into a constant distraction -- the picture is plagued by some of the most obvious edge enhancement I've seen on a new release. Actors occasionally look superimposed onto the screen, dark hats appear disjointed from the rest of the image, and buildings on the horizon look as if they've been etched in against the bright skies. As an experiment, I ejected the disc and trotted to our guest bedroom to see how apparent the EE would be on a small, 27" LCD screen. Sure enough, the transfer's gangly halos still stuck out like a sore thumb -- as such, it's easy to imagine how ugly the edge enhancement is on a larger screen. This is a high definition release... does it really need such an artificial boost to its clarity?

All things considered, 'The Assassination of Jesse James' looks fairly good in high definition, but its flat dimensionality and offensive edge enhancement really spoil the party.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1306/assassinationofjessejames.html

just terrible Warner, I was really looking to get this film too

I decided to watch the movie over Xbox Live in HD first to avoid buying the movie blind, and I must say that I think it looks pretty good--easily a solid 4/5 star rating. Should not the Blu-ray version look even better, or is a different transfer sometimes used for Xbox Live?

The file is only 7.1 GB, and I think Microsoft only does 720p for all their Xbox Live HD downloads; so I'd highly doubt the 7.1 GB (and 720p?) Xbox Live version is outdoing the 25GB 1080p Blu.

My setup:
Xbox Elite via HDMI
Sony 40" 40v2500 1080p

Yes, all Xbox Live HD content is 720p.

I don't know about you guys but as mediocre as the PQ is, the BD release is the best this movie is gonna look on home video for a while and there is no way such a great movie wouldn't be in my collection. Price difference between SD and BD is minimal.

The price I see at B&M stores is $34.99 for the BD if they even have it. The SD DVD is $19.99. That is not a minimal difference IMHO for something that doesn't even like that great. The majority of folks seem disappointed with the PQ whichever forum I check. I know I can get it online but I can also get the SD DVD cheaper online too! If the content is great, then one can do with the SD DVD in their collection by my thinking since the PQ isn't.

No Hastings by me.

Interesting spin on the legendary Jesse James persona and cult of personality. I liked the modernized depiction of James as the probable psychopath he must have become after his Civil War experience and the cult of personality the media developed for him, both the sympathetic southern media and the hateful northern media, like a 19th Century papparazi along with Ford as the misguided celebrity worshiping stalker. Very interesting. I realize the photography was at times intentionally blurred to create the softness of peering through a leaded glass window, but the unevenness of the PQ which revealed periodic artifacting and edge halos was too distracting and therefore made the purchase of a Blu-Ray copy disappointing. I suspect this was a hurried release on dvd and bd designed to refresh memories of the performances in time for the Oscars and that we can expect to be tapped eventually for a double dip when improved dvd and bd releases come out again this fall.

I watched this last night and liked it a lot. I mean, for a 2.5 hour movie that gives its ending away in the title, it was surprisingly watchable. Acting was top notch, definitely one of the best in recent memory. I also thought the PQ was good, certainly not as bad as some have opined.

PQ is alright but becareful buying because its not a movie I would watch muliple times. Its one you watch once and thats enough. Good movie just not one I can see buying.

I think this is the best new movie out on Blu-ray lately. After only a few minutes of it's style, I knew it would stir up the usual suspects that dislike films with a "look". Then, there's the Warner factor.... :D

I think this is the best new movie out on Blu-ray lately.

I would go as far as saying this is the 3rd best movie to be EVER released on Blu-ray (after The 400 Blows and The Seventh Seal).

For those wondering about PQ here is direct captures from the source disc. These should look exactly like the video. If you want to see shots from an exact time just post the time and I can host them up.

http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23109_1117.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23109_1117.png) http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23110_1055.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23110_1055.png)
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23111_2114.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23111_2114.png) http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23112_3111.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23112_3111.png)
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23113_4113.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23113_4113.png) http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23114_598.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23114_598.png)
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23115_693.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23115_693.png) http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23116_768.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23116_768.png)
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23117_870.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23117_870.png) http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t23118_955.png (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i23118_955.png)

I might pick this up looks like a great film. I saw it on the shelf at Best Buy Buy. But $34.99 was way to much. I may have to give amazon a vist.

That isn’t accurate, that is an understatement.

I watched this last night and liked it a lot. I mean, for a 2.5 hour movie that gives its ending away in the title, it was surprisingly watchable. Acting was top notch, definitely one of the best in recent memory. I also thought the PQ was good, certainly not as bad as some have opined.

Just watched it earlier this evening and I agree. PQ was much better than I expected after seeing HDDigest's 3/5 review. The movie itself was terrific. Casey Affleck in particular was every bit as good as I had heard he was.

3:10 to Yuma wishes it was 1/3 as good as Jesse James. Unfair comparison.

Gouty and Arp...

Ok but how? How is it inaccurate? Is there action in it? Is it too long, not too long? Not dissing it, just trying to get an accurate read on expectations. Ive seen 3:10 to Yuma and simply using it as a guage.

The "action" amounts to a few quick deaths by gunshot, and a train robbery. There are no chases or anything, from what I remember. It's a great film, but don't go in expecting action.

Just watched it earlier this evening and I agree. PQ was much better than I expected after seeing HDDigest's 3/5 review. The movie itself was terrific. Casey Affleck in particular was every bit as good as I had heard he was.I watched this movie for the first time last night. I think that some of the reviewers didn't have a clue about the director's intent. A good number of scenes were intentionally shown in sharp focus in the center with the areas going toward the borders of the film progressively more out of focus. Probable was intended to give it a dreamy or "antique" look but reviewers might have taken this for "softness". Also, quite a few outside scenes were photographed from the inside through windows. The glass in these windows was not the crystal clear and uniform glass we're used to today but the windows were made of period (1860s through 1882) glass. And as the scene's shot moved through different portions of the window, someone not knowledgeable could mistake it for unrealistic "distortion" when, in fact, it was distortion caused by the "true-to-the-period" window quality. The makers of this film paid great attention to detail.

I was hesitant to purchase this title as many find it being a poor transfer. I have always dreaded EE and cannot understand how it can be added to a HD transfer. However, after viewing the excellent still copies of AJP69 some posts above, I will now not hesitate to make the purchase. I have not yet seen it, but from what I have read, It seems to be an excellent movie rich in substance and devoid of mindless action/violence so present in many American movies. It is a refreshing change.

Gouty and Arp...

Ok but how? How is it inaccurate? Is there action in it? Is it too long, not too long? Not dissing it, just trying to get an accurate read on expectations. Ive seen 3:10 to Yuma and simply using it as a guage.

There's a train robbery towards the beginning and that's about it for action. This movie is very similar to movies by Terence Malick (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line).

A good number of scenes were intentionally shown in sharp focus in the center with the areas going toward the borders of the film progressively more out of focus.


IMO those were the best shot scenes in this movie. Just breathtaking.

There's a train robbery towards the beginning and that's about it for action. This movie is very similar to movies by Terence Malick (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line).

Your are comparing it to three masterpieces!:)

It's on the same level. It's that good.

Ron Hansen's book has a great passage about the James/Younger gang's Northfield Minnesota Raid and I feel the film would have benefited if it had included that scene, but then I suppose we can go to Walter Hill's Long Riders (not out on hi-definition yet) or The Wild Bunch for that type of thing. Nevertheless, it's a great western and one of the best films in a good period for films (Zodiac, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood). I've watched it a number of times now and although I can see some mild edge-enhancement it is by no means disturbing. Can't see any artefacts whatsoever, but that could be because I'm using a smallish screen (a 50" Plasma). Perhaps people are taking a negative view from watching a 100" screen ?

I purchased this movie yesterday and have not watched it yet so this is based off of other releases and specs.

But if you think that Warner Blu Ray releases haven't been "crippled" by the specs of HD DVD you are sadly mistaken.

Why would Warner use more than 30GB for a release (movie/audio/extras) when you can't use if on both formats? Two seperate encodes costs more money.

This is all conjecture at the moment, IMHO we will see Warner do a better job on movies once they move Blu.

P.S. It doesn't matter WHY they switched either. The point that matters is they did.:D

Good grief, whatever. I guess that's why Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix looked so bad, right?:rolleyes:

Well I was able to rent the SD DVD and that wasn't an easy task either as local Blockbuster stores only had about 5 copies of this film to begin with and none on BD.

I'm glad I watched it but this isn't one that I'll be purchasing. I wouldn't know the point of multiple viewing for me personally. The story is good and the PQ /AQ AQ wasn't really that bad considering I watched the SD DVD.

I'd say rent this one first and make a decision yourself. Problem is renting this on BD is not going to be doable for awhile unless you get lucky from your online resource or your local video store even has it.

I have this on my shelf still wrapped and was considering returning it to Best Buy based on all the whining about the PQ...but after reading this last page and seeing those still shots, I'm going to keep it and watch it this weekend. Actually can't wait, now.

Casey Affleck in particular was every bit as good as I had heard he was.

So good, in fact, that you start to wonder if he was adopted. ;)

On the blu-ray.com forum, someone mentioned there might be a director's cut in May.

I can't stress enough how wonderful this movie is. I had scantly heard of this during it's theatrical debut and had a read a few negative reviews on the film. It is a masterpiece and Casey Affleck is awesome.

I am also happy with the PQ of the BD and it looks much better than the DVD. I do wish there was a PCM soundtrack though.

The re-release post on that forum is total speculation. No one posted a credible link for support when I requested!

The disc has been out a week now and they're talking about a re-release..... :rolleyes: I'm just now plotting to view it a second time.

hopefully we get the re-release so I can buy this outstanding movie

hopefully we get the re-release so I can buy this outstanding movie

Realisticly, how many percent percentage points in PQ improvement are you expecting? I rather doubt it'll ever look nights and days better. I'm quessing your number is a very low number.

just get rid of the EE and add the extra footage and atleast add a DD+ track and I'll be happy

I don't see WB re-releasing this on Blu-ray. The movie isn't mainstream, targeted at a fairly niche audience. Unless the format really catches on and they do a 'special edition' type re-release.

I wish there was a re-release for this joke of a transfer, because the film is so wonderful



but unless Warner themselves says I won't believe it for 1 sec

"joke of a tranfer" is a little harsh. I think it was a combination of directors intent and a 2.5 movie on a BD25.

This movie should have been on a BD-50 and had lossless audio. Blu Ray has the room so what is the problem Warner. If it was a 1.5 hour movie BD25 would be fine.

"joke of a tranfer" is a little harsh. I think it was a combination of directors intent and a 2.5 movie on a BD25.

This movie should have been on a BD-50 and had lossless audio. Blu Ray has the room so what is the problem Warner. If it was a 1.5 hour movie BD25 would be fine.

Umm, troy:directors cut is longer, has a lossless track and apparently looks great and it fit on a 30GB hd dvd so IMO the BD25 excuse/reason is a bit silly for people to use. I'd guess the transfer for this movie is the directors intent as you stated and if there are any transfer issues it is merely laziness of the person(s) encoding it.

if there are any transfer issues it is merely laziness of the person(s) encoding it.

That is why a BD50 is important on a 2.5 hour movie. A monkey could to the transfer and it would look great. Put it on a 25GB (or 30gb HD DVD for the matter) and it takes some talent. Obviously this person or group didn't have it.

Again, it doesn't look horrible, it just could have been better. Plus this soundtrack could have shined with a lossless track.

I will say this about another cut of this film...this movie worked perfectly for me. I'd be very reluctant to purchase a recut version of this film. I feel even more footage would be extremely detrimental to the quality of the film.

just finished watching. good movie but terrible encode.

I'll get the BD from netflix eventually as I'm curious as to the quality but I really don't think I'll be buying this one. I doubt there will be a re-release either. That thread on bluray forum should be closed if no proof can be offered. Just saying they got it from a good reliable source doesn't cut it IMHO.

I watched this movie for the first time last night. I think that some of the reviewers didn't have a clue about the director's intent. A good number of scenes were intentionally shown in sharp focus in the center with the areas going toward the borders of the film progressively more out of focus.

I think the director's intent specifically with those shots was to give the movie a look of watching through the bottom of a beer mug. Trouble was he included this kind of shot so often that I had to limit the number of beers I was tipping while watching because the movie was becoming a total blur.

"...Seems to me there should be a standard by the blueray consortium folks that at least ONE hd audio track needs to be on all blue ray disks....

Ha Ha!!! You said "Standard" and "BluRay" in the same sentence! With this format, Lord only knows what you'll get.:confused:

I was really disappointed in this movie, wish I would have rented it and not bought it

I didnt have a problem with the PQ, it wasnt great but it also wasnt anything for me to complain about...could have used a lossless track though, maybe that will be included in the re-release

Weren't all of the scenes where the image had the "looking through an old telescope effect" during points of narration? Thus director's intent to mark it as memory portrayal and give the unclear vision of someones description of the events years later.
I thought overall the PQ was pretty good and just lacked a little fine detail and that the dark scenes could have been better. The outdoor day time scenes were really great though, especially the high contrast snow covered scenes. I really liked this movie after all of its subtleties came together. The musical score was really good. This really did deserve a better soundtrack encode though...PCM...DTHD something.

Let me ask this important question: How does the BR look in comparison to the PSN trailer?



because I thought the trailer looked pretty nice

This link provides info on the vision of the Director of Photography and the intended look of the film.

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/October2007/QAWithDeakins/page1.php

Ended up getting the BD. The PQ isn't really that bad as some state. This movie is really starting to grow on me. I didn't think initially I would come back to this one but boy was I wrong!

I bought on Amazon and watched it Friday night-- I really liked it. I didnt know the PQ was substandard until I read this review ! Also..the special feature is pretty good and in HD.

Do we have a verdict on this one yet?

I finally got my 5 free HD-DVD, and I took 4 of them back to WalMart for store credit. Now I have money to blow and am going to pick up Superbad. I am also in the mood for a blind buy. Right now I am looking at either this movie or "Across The Universe". But the PQ on this one seems suspect.

Do we have a verdict on this one yet?

I finally got my 5 free HD-DVD, and I took 4 of them back to WalMart for store credit. Now I have money to blow and am going to pick up Superbad. I am also in the mood for a blind buy. Right now I am looking at either this movie or "Across The Universe". But the PQ on this one seems suspect.

Heed what the poster before you said....he didn't know that the PQ was "substandard" until he read that it was. In a longish film there is maybe a minute of scenes with some edge haloing due to sharpening or other processing. IMO, the PQ isn't purr-fect but it's sufficent to enjoy a film. Buy a copy if you like westerns. This film blows away that big turkey, 3:10 To Nonsense....;)

Great movie period. I saw it at the theater and thought it was fantastic and remembered thinking it would make a great HD title. After reading this thread I decided to just rent it last night to see if it really was a stinker.

I have to say i was a little dissapointed with the transfer... there were SOO many times when a lossless soundtrack would have been great. The video was soft at times and there were some times when i felt like the black levels were messed up. I popped in another disc just to make sure i hadn't messed up one of my settings, but it was just the way the movie was shot.

Either way if your a fan of westerns, and more importantly this movie then this ones probably worth a buy. It definately goes into a category of westerns we don't have many of. I doubt we'll see a re-issue any time soon guys. :( Sad , but true.

Let me ask this important question: How does the BR look in comparison to the PSN trailer?



because I thought the trailer looked pretty nice

anyone?

I guess my expectations were really low after reading up on it, but I thought it looked good. Granted, I'm sure it could look better, but I thought a lot of the outdoor scenes were beautiful. The snow capped mountains looked quite detailed in the backgrounds, too. I wasn't disappointed at all. Great movie, too.

IMO, the PQ isn't purr-fect but it's sufficent to enjoy a film. )

Rachael, I'm confused, Why would you accept a transfer only being "sufficient" especially when other studios are putting out a higher quality product? I don't want to start a bd25 vs bd50 or vc1 vs mpeg 4 argument, but I will say I have been consistently frustrated with Warner's transfers time and time again. From Superman Returns right on down the line.....

Chris

Rachael, I'm confused, Why would you accept a transfer only being "sufficient" especially when other studios are putting out a higher quality product? I don't want to start a bd25 vs bd50 or vc1 vs mpeg 4 argument, but I will say I have been consistently frustrated with Warner's transfers time and time again. From Superman Returns right on down the line.....

Chris

I'm hoping and expecting that once they stop doing dual format encodes, things will improve. . .

Rachael, I'm confused, Why would you accept a transfer only being "sufficient" especially when other studios are putting out a higher quality product? I don't want to start a bd25 vs bd50 or vc1 vs mpeg 4 argument, but I will say I have been consistently frustrated with Warner's transfers time and time again. From Superman Returns right on down the line.....

Chris


The movie was a commercial flop. We're lucky it even garnered an HD release. I paid a scant, few dollars more than if I'd purchased a DVD that would of looked patentedly inferior. It's not at all an optimum disc but it is decidely an optimum film.


P.S. - Superman Returns looked that butt-ugly in the cinema same as the bloody HD discs that folks so love to trash. I think it's the ugliest film I've ever witnessed in the cinema. How else could it look?

Let me ask this important question: How does the BR look in comparison to the PSN trailer?



because I thought the trailer looked pretty nice




I think I've asked this question a few times in this thread

This seems to be a repetitive in nature of studios.. LD's the transfers varied, with DVDs the first 10 years they varied and now with HD-DVD they varied and the same goes with Blu-Ray.. I guess if they gave stellar presses of every movie they couldn't sell us the new and improved versions.. ;) LOL I thought the PQ was decent on this flick, much better than the DVD....

Casey Affleck's annyoing voice makes me want to strangle him! It's more irritating that even Toby McGuire's. I guess there's one benefit to not having a lossless track - his voice would be even more unbearable.

My biggest complaint about the movie was its audio track. I watched it in my theater and at 110 inches the video overpowered the audio rather badly... to the point it was easily (and often) noticeable during the movie. It had a shallow sound to it which would have been much better suited for the den.

My main complaint, its one of those w-i-d-e movies that leaves huge black bars top and bottom for us without FPs :)

The acting and such was very good, if a little slow.

So for people trashing Warner for making a HD-DVD port. What are you going to say in June when Warner still uses 25GB discs, and since they use VC-1 never come close to peak rates.

Is this movie the best available in PQ in terms of look? No.

But is there anything wrong with it in terms of the encode? No.

The fact is its almost shameful when movies hit peak rates and maintain 20-25 mbs a second because no movie with either codec should hit that high. That is is a sign of lazy person.

The fact that half of the posts I made in this thread were deleted accidentally is disconcerting, but I'd just like to close with my opinion that this release is quite satisfactory for the time being. I don't anticipate another release for some time.

Let me ask this important question: How does the BR look in comparison to the PSN trailer?



because I thought the trailer looked pretty nice




I think I've asked this question a few times in this thread



anyone...

Casey Affleck's annyoing voice makes me want to strangle him! It's more irritating that even Toby McGuire's. I guess there's one benefit to not having a lossless track - his voice would be even more unbearable.

I enjoyed the film, but you are right about Casey Afflec's voice. The only downside to the film IMHOP.

This had to be the most boring film I have ever watched. My wife and I rented it with huge anticipation. We let it run for quite a while until we finally figured out the film was never going anywhere.

Brad Pitt needs to retire.

Marcus

I enjoyed the film, but you are right about Casey Afflec's voice. The only downside to the film IMHOP.

I think what you're calling an annoying voice works well for his character. He's supposed to be unlikeable. He's supposed to be even more vile than Jesse James, no small task.

Watched the blu-ray over the weekend. Generally the picture looks good, sharp and detail. But there is some very weird artifacts, especially on people faces. For example in chapter 2 around 5m12s to 5m22s. It's a slow pan/zoom scene on Mr. Frank James head/face. Watch carefully on the face, there seems a layer of haze or texture overlay on the face. It's very visible and annonying during the slow pan scene, kind of like a layer of "dirt" is superimposed on the image. The PS3 reports VC1 bitrate is around 18Mbps so the bitrate seems not a problem.

So what's at fault? Is it the original film? Encoding/authoring issue? Or my playback system?

PS3 HDMI 1080p 24hz to Sony VW50 on a 100" diag white screen at around 8' viewing distance.

regards,

Li On

Let me ask this important question: How does the BR look in comparison to the PSN trailer?



because I thought the trailer looked pretty nice




I think I've asked this question a few times in this thread


?