Blu-ray, HD-DVD & HD Broadcasts(H.264 & MPEG-2) Screenshots*BIG FILES* - Page 21 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #601 of 2128 Old 05-25-2007, 07:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hd nOOb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That Training Day bout sums it what we will see when studios go netural, not to mention the extras and IME.

Blu ray is the best Blah, blah, blah.
hd nOOb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #602 of 2128 Old 05-25-2007, 08:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The BRD encode looks a little sharper. I forgot I actually did one of the first comparisons when it was released. The first direct digital screengrab of a BRD compared against a broadcast version, I think:


Thank you for the comparisons, House.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #603 of 2128 Old 05-25-2007, 08:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
House's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Mission: Impossible [old transfer vs new]

Hold on to your butts.

HBO;


HD-DVD;


HBO;


HD-DVD;


HBO;


HD-DVD;


HBO;


HD-DVD;


Hmmm...
House is offline  
 
post #604 of 2128 Old 05-25-2007, 08:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interesting. The previous HD version of MI is probably almost 10 years old now. Tons of EE, blown highlights, noise, etc.

You rock, House. Just like the tv show.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #605 of 2128 Old 05-25-2007, 09:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's a detail of the jaggies on Dirty Dancing:


The whole movie has this? Damn.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #606 of 2128 Old 05-25-2007, 09:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post

(...)

HBO;


HD-DVD;

Did you accidentally mix up the screenshots? If not then the broadcast version owns the HD version
WTF is up with that?

Horrible, horrible noise reduction resulting in a huge loss of detail, making the images look smeary. Yuck.
Chris_TC is offline  
post #607 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 01:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Here's a detail of the jaggies on Dirty Dancing:


The whole movie has this? Damn.

some scenes are much worse than that. i will get a time stamp for a really bad scene tomorrow. one such is when she wears a shirt that has red and white horizontal striping and she is (i think i recall) in the dining area.
skibum5000 is offline  
post #608 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 01:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post

The last one shows the effects of HDNet's DNR pretty clearly. Ruins the whole opening sequence.

Eeek. Stone age. but the HD-DVD has some too.
mhafner is offline  
post #609 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 02:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

Did you accidentally mix up the screenshots? If not then the broadcast version owns the HD version
WTF is up with that?
Horrible, horrible noise reduction resulting in a huge loss of detail, making the images look smeary. Yuck.

The order is correct. The missing detail is telecine noise. Strange ugly noise patterns. Not genuine film grain. The HD-DVD looks far better.
mhafner is offline  
post #610 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 02:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

The order is correct. The missing detail is telecine noise. Strange ugly noise patterns. Not genuine film grain. The HD-DVD looks far better.

I even detect some sharpening on the broadcastversion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #611 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 08:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

The order is correct. The missing detail is telecine noise. Strange ugly noise patterns. Not genuine film grain. The HD-DVD looks far better.

Only some of it is noise. The HD DVD transfer is clearly grain reduced. It has that typical smeary look.

You think there's no missing detail? I could give you a ton of examples. Here are just a few.


Chris_TC is offline  
post #612 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 12:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with both. The broadcast version looks like noisy EEed garbage, and the HD-DVD (at least these screenshots) looks like soft filtered trash. Disappointing for such a big release and a DePalma film.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #613 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 04:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,395
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I agree with both. The broadcast version looks like noisy EEed garbage, and the HD-DVD (at least these screenshots) looks like soft filtered trash. Disappointing for such a big release and a DePalma film.

How about the MPEG2 BD version?

It's also BD50 I believe.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #614 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 06:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Going by the other comparisons the mpeg-2 will just be noisier. I'd be surprised if it's not as soft as the HD-DVD.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #615 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 06:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by skibum5000 View Post

some scenes are much worse than that. i will get a time stamp for a really bad scene tomorrow. one such is when she wears a shirt that has red and white horizontal striping and she is (i think i recall) in the dining area.

starting around 28:51 it is really, really bad. look at her white and red striped shirt. some frames are mostly ok, but many are BAD (way worse than the example you posted).
skibum5000 is offline  
post #616 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 07:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC View Post

Only some of it is noise. The HD DVD transfer is clearly grain reduced. It has that typical smeary look.

You think there's no missing detail? I could give you a ton of examples. Here are just a few.

but look at the second to last pair. you can read "police" on the car much more easily on the HD DVD version. anyway, as someone said, the HBO has bad oversharpening (and yet perhaps less actual detail, if more contrast, than the HD DVD), but the HD DVD is kinda not great in its own way.
skibum5000 is offline  
post #617 of 2128 Old 05-26-2007, 07:27 PM
Member
 
Captainjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mission: Impossible is quite disappointing.
Captainjoe is offline  
post #618 of 2128 Old 05-27-2007, 09:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cyberbri's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by skibum5000 View Post

but look at the second to last pair. you can read "police" on the car much more easily on the HD DVD version. anyway, as someone said, the HBO has bad oversharpening (and yet perhaps less actual detail, if more contrast, than the HD DVD), but the HD DVD is kinda not great in its own way.


A better example is the Antique sign on the right side of the screen.
cyberbri is offline  
post #619 of 2128 Old 05-27-2007, 10:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbri View Post

A better example is the Antique sign on the right side of the screen.

Not just the sign, but the whole area of the frame around the antique sign shows far more detail in the HD-DVD version. Look at the green wall on the street blocking off the section of the sidewalk- you can see the vertical columns on it that are blurred away in the broadcast version. What folks are calling "detail" in the broadcast captures looks like nasty edge-enhancement with all the resulting artifacts to me.

Vincent
Vincent Pereira is offline  
post #620 of 2128 Old 05-27-2007, 02:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bosng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
what's confusing to me is the fact that blu ray is supposed to have more capacity to store information than hd dvd but in the discussion about underworld the hd dvd version has higher bit rates.

why would blu ray suffer from this if it is supposed to be the bigger more robust format?

the version with less visible macroblocking seems to me to be the clear winner, blending or no.
bosng is offline  
post #621 of 2128 Old 05-27-2007, 05:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

what's confusing to me is the fact that blu ray is supposed to have more capacity to store information than hd dvd but in the discussion about underworld the hd dvd version has higher bit rates.

why would blu ray suffer from this if it is supposed to be the bigger more robust format?

the version with less visible macroblocking seems to me to be the clear winner, blending or no.

underworld was one of the earlier blu-ray titles it used mpeg2 and perhaps was only 25GB disc. i forget about the latter point.
skibum5000 is offline  
post #622 of 2128 Old 05-27-2007, 11:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I agree with both. The broadcast version looks like noisy EEed garbage, and the HD-DVD (at least these screenshots) looks like soft filtered trash. Disappointing for such a big release and a DePalma film.

I think they have done a rescan of the movie. The thing that doesnt make sense is it have so much detail in other parts of the movie compared to the broadcast.

So one detail i saw was the movies had different colorcurves. The Broadcast is much more flat compared to the HD. So the road is much more darker on the Broadcast. Its much more exposed for the HD version. That will partly explain the difference. Overexposed will take away some detail.

Then if you add sharpening etc it will make the difference bigger, but not better.

In the end they dont even come from the same master.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #623 of 2128 Old 05-27-2007, 11:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah, they're both from different telecines. The broadcast version was certainly made before 2000. Maybe even from 1996/97. Film to video transfers have come a long way since then.

The "new" transfer was probably made much more recently but why it's so damn soft is a mystery and huge disappointment. I'd like to see some captures from Xylon though to rule out the use of an older software decoder.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #624 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 09:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I dont think its the decoder. The biggest issue is in the brighter areas.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #625 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 10:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I think they have done a rescan of the movie. The thing that doesnt make sense is it have so much detail in other parts of the movie compared to the broadcast.

I agree, this is very strange. As others have pointed out the right hand side of the frame resolves more detail in the HD DVD version.

But that doesn't change my opinion by much at all. Yes, the broadcast version has some nasty edge enhancement and the bitrates produce a bit of artifacts and noise, but despite all that it still looks considerably more filmlike/35mm to me than the HD DVD version.
Chris_TC is offline  
post #626 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 06:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Xylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Xylon is offline  
post #627 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 06:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Xylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Post #598 file size added. I forgot the first time.
Xylon is offline  
post #628 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 07:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
They really cranked up the saturation on Dirty Dancing, didn't they? I'm not sure if I like it.

I don't see any jaggies in that shot. Maybe it's more obvious in motion. Vertical objects would show this much more clearly.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #629 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 09:03 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

They really cranked up the saturation on Dirty Dancing, didn't they? I'm not sure if I like it.

I don't see any jaggies in that shot. Maybe it's more obvious in motion. Vertical objects would show this much more clearly.

I agree, it's rather over-the-top. I don't mind some extra color, but when it is overboosted like that it causes some pretty dastardly posterization - for example on her forehead and in her hair.

It looks like those old-fashioned black and white photos that are then colorized, only not as natural.

rdjam is offline  
post #630 of 2128 Old 05-28-2007, 09:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I really hope this doesn't become a trend with remastering 1980s films. More color saturation to give more "pop".
Kram Sacul is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off