Hello,

My wife and I were at Best Buy today looking at Blu-Ray and HD DVD players. They had a Blu-Ray/Samsung LCD set up showing something from Pirate of the Carribean. The PQ quality was amazing. My questions is this: why was the PQ so good? It looked like it was a behind-the-scenes segment. My wife made the comment, "It looks like they are acting it out right in front of you." I have never seen anything look so good. They were showing the same movie in another area and the PQ was not as good. So, was it their set-up? If I had to guess I would say it was a behind-the-scenes segment. If so, why isn't the whole movie shot that way?

The whole movie looks pretty darn good if you ask me. Most of the time the sets in brick and mortar stores aren't calibrated, so that's probably why one looked good and the other didn't.

The Samsung TV may have been using MoviePlus digital frame interpolation (similar to Philips' Digital Natural Motion system). It makes motion smoother and more naturalistic at first appearance, but also produces digital trailing. Some people think it looks great, while others hate it. I tried it as a novelty, but it tends to make movies look like home videos (as you say) and now have it turned off permanently.

The main reason I posed this question was to see if anyone who has the Pirates collection could tell me if there are behind the scenes segments that look much, much better than the movie itself.

What you were seeing is the effect of "auto-motion plus" or whatever they call it, that interpolates extra fake frames in between the real frames, giving the illusion that the material is shot at a higher frame rate. Most or all 120Hz LCD TVs are capable of this, but it can be turned off.

The main reason I posed this question was to see if anyone who has the Pirates collection could tell me if there are behind the scenes segments that look much, much better than the movie itself.

They were probably shot on video and not film. ;) Video has a different type of look than film.

Also the display at BB was likely set to the high color/blue/cool setting to compete with the fluorescent lights and all the other displays. This is eye catching but is not natural and will cause eye fatigue over long term viewing.

Not another one of these threads. :D

Not another one of these threads. :D

You mean like this three page existing thread asking the same question? ;)


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951802&highlight=120

120Hz LCD and I hate the way it looks BTW.

120Hz LCD and I hate the way it looks BTW.

same here, motion just doesn't look natural, it feels as if everything is playing at 1.25x speed or something.

I saw this same thing the other day at Best Buy. I have an HD-DVD player & enjoy HD movies at the house, but I have to say, I stopped & staired(?) in amazement at this clip. It was the scene on the mountain top where Bloom was tied upside side down on a poll and being carried to the BBQ, ( depps eye lids where painted with eyes). These few minutes look fantastic. I don't know if it was the quaility of the transfer or the display. This is the 1st time that I truly felt like I was there, at that very scene watching them film it live...............

I saw this same thing the other day at Best Buy. I have an HD-DVD player & enjoy HD movies at the house, but I have to say, I stopped & staired(?) in amazement at this clip.

If you're used to HD content but it still strongly catches your attention, then it was almost certainly motion enhancement; especially if as described above it looked almost like "behind the scenes" footage. Best Buy usually has a couple Samsung and Sony models on the floor that can do this, though the local store doesn't always have the motion enhancement switched on and they usually run a lame demo loop instead of a movie that would show it off better.

In summary: it's not the movie, transfer, media format, or player. It's the TV.

Not another one of these threads. :D
At least it's not another "black bars" thread.

At least it's not another "black bars" thread.

well id like to know why manufactures are producing 1.78:1 wide screens when 90% of movies are 2.35/2.40:1? why not make them in the latter aspect ratio? or at least make both?

well id like to know why manufactures are producing 1.78:1 wide screens when 90% of movies are 2.35/2.40:1? why not make them in the latter aspect ratio? or at least make both?

16x9 screens are the best middle ground between the extremes of aspect ratios. With a 4x3 screen, 2.4:1 films have huge black bars on top and bottom. With 2.4:1 screens, 4x3 material has huge black bars on the sides. Having TV's that are 16x9 (in the middle between 4x3 and 2.4:1), it minimizes the size of black bars when you have material of each extreme. Making TV's of all different aspect ratios does not make any sense, thats why they chose a good middle ground. I'd like to know where the 90% comes from though.

At least it's not another "black bars" thread.yet. ;)

I'd like to know where the 90% comes from though.

It's an exaggeration, of course, but he gets that idea because of what has been released so far. Action, sci-fi, and/or comic book movies tend to be 2.35:1 more often than not, and that's what's been released on HDM due to demographics. Many of the big selling titles are 2.35:1.

Other than some day and date titles, there haven't been as many dramas or comedies, which tend to be 1.85:1 more often. Documentaries are also usually 1.85:1, but there have been hardly any of those. Plus, some people have the attitude that comedies don't benefit from HD, so they don't buy them (and thus they're not thought of when coming up with an "estimate" for the number of 2.35:1 films).

If I had to guess, I'd say it's about two-thirds 2.35:1, and one-third 1.85:1 so far (leaving out the 1.33:1 titles). Of course, that includes all films, not just those with explosions and special effects.

Another thing to keep in mind about the television screens is that TV sets are really made to watch, well, TV, first and foremost. Since the TV standard is 1.78:1, that's why the sets are in that ratio.

Another thing to keep in mind about the television screens is that TV sets are really made to watch, well, TV, first and foremost. Since the TV standard is 1.78:1, that's why the sets are in that ratio.

funny how that works out, huh? ;)

football games in hd fill my screen... :)

on topic...

it's that funky interpolation thingie at work... while very eye-catching at first (i stopped and stared at it the first time i saw it), it quickly becomes tiresome... imo... ymmv...

yet. ;)

Damn, it's my fault.

well regardless, i still have not hard why not make different aspect ratios like 2.35:1 along side the regular 1.78:1? my only guess is they dont because most people are stupid and will cry when they get home and see their HD channels have black bars on the sides. there is a HUGE market for 2.35:1 displays IMO. its not like HD will look bad, it will just have bars. people put up with having bars when watching movies which to me is far more important a matter than watching TV. id gladly pay a 100% premium if samsung suddenly decides to make a 2.35:1 version of the 5271F.

Sorry, this thread has nothing to do with BD discs (especially now).

larry