The Matrix Collection official...10/14 - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 01:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

Are kids failing reading comprehension these days? I said we only think it's great because we haven't had an opportunity to see it look any better. The important word there is "opportunity". Because Warner recycled their HD DVD encode rather than go back and give us something that actually utilizes the full potential Blu-ray has to offer (higher max video bitrate, more capacity for a higher average bitrate, etc).

What follows is pure opinion backed up only by my personal experience with Warner titles:

But then I've always had a problem with recycled Warner releases. They're usually soft or lack significant detail, and I suspect these Matrix movies will end up being more of the same. Meanwhile other studios, notably Paramount and even Universal (the latter with mixed results, due to unfortunate tampering it seems) seem to care enough about their product and the people buying it to invest in new encodes specifically for Blu-ray.

This is, afterall, the same studio intent on using lossy audio codecs despite the rest of the industry standardizing on either Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA (see Speed Racer, etc). I only fear what they'll do to The Lord of the Rings...

Obviously you never seen the HD DVD's, why don't you wait and see the actual product before you going further with your "global warming" theory!

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 03:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Mel2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
after watching the matrix trilogy on blu yesterday I must say i'm very disappointed. the bitrates constantly hovered in the single digits. flat and lack of detail throughout. bitrates aren't worth a whole lot in some transfers but when they are as low as they were during these movies, the PQ is suffering because of it. Warner should've took advantage of what blu-ray offers. these movies should've looked alot better imo. the truehd tracks however were very good. I was impressed with them. at least universal re-encoded all their blu-ray releases.
Mel2 is offline  
post #183 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 03:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel2 View Post

after watching the matrix trilogy on blu yesterday I must say i'm very disappointed. the bitrates constantly hovered in the single digits. flat and lack of detail throughout. bitrates aren't worth a whole lot in some transfers but when they are as low as they were during these movies, the PQ is suffering because of it. Warner should've took advantage of what blu-ray offers. these movies should've looked alot better imo. the truehd tracks however were very good. I was impressed with them. at least universal re-encoded all their blu-ray releases.

You know that the look of matrix is a creative descisions and not a technical limitation of bitrate?

Movies looks a certain way because alot of factors.

lens, lights, filmstocks, postprocessing etc etc.

How do you know it would have looked better? Because (not taking the new colortiming into account) its very true to the theatrical version I saw.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #184 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 08:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
paul nyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel2 View Post

after watching the matrix trilogy on blu yesterday I must say i'm very disappointed. the bitrates constantly hovered in the single digits. flat and lack of detail throughout. bitrates aren't worth a whole lot in some transfers but when they are as low as they were during these movies, the PQ is suffering because of it. Warner should've took advantage of what blu-ray offers. these movies should've looked alot better imo. the truehd tracks however were very good. I was impressed with them. at least universal re-encoded all their blu-ray releases.

1- what are you using to view the films

2- i have never disagreed more with another person than right now
paul nyc is offline  
post #185 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 08:08 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc View Post

1- what are you using to view the films

Just about to ask the same question, I have the HD DVD version and that looks superb. BD will be exactly the same.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #186 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 08:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc View Post

1- what are you using to view the films

2- i have never disagreed more with another person than right now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Just about to ask the same question, I have the HD DVD version and that looks superb. BD will be exactly the same.

The reason it looks good to you (and pretty much every reviewer) is because you are not watching with a bitrate meter. It is the best and only way to judge a film picture quality.

Bitrate goes down, picture quality is bad. Bitrate goes up, picture quality is good. Why trust your eyes when bitrate are more accurate.

rveras is offline  
post #187 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 08:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
shadowrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

John Mayer: Where the Light Is - 48,28 GB
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - 49,68 GB
Mad Men: Season One - 49,97 GB
Shine a Light - 49,53 GB
Shoot 'Em Up - 49,92 GB

All the above titles have utilized 10 GB more space than the Matrix which clearly indicates that the DVD special features could have easily been accommodated in each BD-50. The special features can be listed page wise in the extras menu to avoid them from looking cluttered.

Please note that the Matrix discs are a single global press like Warner's recent offerings as they include all important dubs and subtitles.

Don't Dual layers come in different sizes?
Quote:


BD provides large
recording capacities such as 46.6/50/54 GB (23.3/25/27 GB per layer)

From the White Paper, well the one I could find http://www.blurayjukebox.com/pdfs/ge...rmat-12834.pdf
It's from 2004 but I'm pretty sure the mechanics are the same. Can't find a better one.

It's possible that Warner uses different Dual Layers to cut down costs and then calls them BD50 for simplicities sake. That would kind of add up since both the Matrix and Reloaded seem to capped at about 40GB, at least according the the specs thread. Does anyone know how much data the Warner BDs can physically hold at max?

Ridiculous codec tier sig gone. Still AVC/24bit lossless fanboy.

Studio quality tier
Most Major studios>Small Studios>dogs>cats>Warner(the guys that do new movies)
shadowrage is offline  
post #188 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 09:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
zoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Is there a review of UK version BLURAY? and if it is REGION FREE?
zoro is offline  
post #189 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 12:42 PM
Senior Member
 
MelloFellow13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mount Pleasant, SC
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am seriously jonesing for this release. I must have checked WHV's my express checkout site like 50 times in the past week. Why don't they just ship it!?
MelloFellow13 is offline  
post #190 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GmanAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ridgewood, NJ
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I guess I'll just have to triple dip and get them on BD... and have my own eyes be judge & jury:

HD DVD on XA2 vs BD on 51FD.

Sunday cannot come soon enough
GmanAVS is offline  
post #191 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 02:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
tbass2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by rveras View Post

The reason it looks good to you (and pretty much every reviewer) is because you are not watching with a bitrate meter. It is the best and only way to judge a film picture quality.

Bitrate goes down, picture quality is bad. Bitrate goes up, picture quality is good. Why trust your eyes when bitrate are more accurate.


ROTFLMAO! I guess nobody else caught your sarcasm.....it does seem that way though. "OH NO! This looked good until I hit the info button and saw the bitrate!" lol.
tbass2k is offline  
post #192 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 02:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbass2k View Post

ROTFLMAO! I guess nobody else caught your sarcasm.....it does seem that way though. "OH NO! This looked good until I hit the info button and saw the bitrate!" lol.

Exactly!!!
rveras is offline  
post #193 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 05:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
darkedgex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
As nice as it is to be dismissive of the discussion revolving around bitrate, the fact remains: where we have two titles encoded with the same codec but with differing bitrates we can usually pick out additional details in the higher bitrate encode.

Unless someone is now disputing this singular truth, I don't see how the "oh it's good enough" crowd really has any legs to stand on when they go on with their anti-bitrate rants.

Fight mediocrity: Insist on BD50 discs for all movies longer than 100 minutes, optimized video encodes that fully utilize the available space, lossless audio track, and new masters for catalog titles!
darkedgex is offline  
post #194 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 11:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Xylon, please come and settle this. The first film shoud suffice...

Dave Mack is offline  
post #195 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 11:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

As nice as it is to be dismissive of the discussion revolving around bitrate, the fact remains: where we have two titles encoded with the same codec but with differing bitrates we can usually pick out additional details in the higher bitrate encode.

Yes when we pause and zoom in the screencap, we can sometimes notice a slight difference.

But since its impossible to detect these differences during playback.

Statements like, the image quality clealry suffered from the low bitrate, will not be taken serious by most members here. Unless you clearly can see the difference during playback.

Even less considering that most of a movies look, has nothing to do with the encoding in the first place.

Its not like that you only need to have 35mm cam, 4K scan and the footage will look fantastic.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #196 of 774 Old 10-10-2008, 11:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
shadowrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Even less considering that most of a movies look, has nothing to do with the encoding in the first place.

Photography skillz > encode/codec.

I'm putting my money on the BDs looking as good as the HD-DVDs. Furthermore, looking better than most BDs.

Anyway it looks like Warner is getting better about bitrates Mongol probably averages about 20Mbps(makes a difference when you check a larger sample). And I checked out pieces of Band of Brothers I don't think that will drop below 30Mbps. They both have incredible detail and mad photography.

Ridiculous codec tier sig gone. Still AVC/24bit lossless fanboy.

Studio quality tier
Most Major studios>Small Studios>dogs>cats>Warner(the guys that do new movies)
shadowrage is offline  
post #197 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 02:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Bitrate meters are what are used by insecure people to justify Blu-ray's superiority over HD DVD, regardless of any other factor. I have seen astonishing Blu-ray releases with low bitrates, and average looking Blu-ray releases with high bitrates.

Blu-ray has won. HD DVD is dead. Isn't that enough? Why can't you just let the silly bitrate issue drop and enjoy the movies? They looked great on HD DVD, and they look great on Blu-ray.

What the hell more do you want? You want to see more detail in Carrie-Anne Moss's facial fuzz like you see in her close up in the opening scene of the first movie?
Kilgore is offline  
post #198 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 03:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

As nice as it is to be dismissive of the discussion revolving around bitrate, the fact remains: where we have two titles encoded with the same codec but with differing bitrates we can usually pick out additional details in the higher bitrate encode.

Unless someone is now disputing this singular truth, I don't see how the "oh it's good enough" crowd really has any legs to stand on when they go on with their anti-bitrate rants.

I think the discrepancy is due to the inclusion of IME track's AVBR in the bit rate calculation. But 13~16 Mbps for such demanding films is still way too low.

If memory serves me right, I think quite a number of members expressed disappointment with the macroblocking in Revolutions.

To me, the issue with this UMC package is the usage of 3 additional SD DVDs when each BD-50 disc is still left with 10+ GB of space.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #199 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 04:03 AM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All i really want is the first three films in high definition ( with NO macroblocking ) and a high definition version of The Animatrix....I don't care much for the extras. I have the ten disc DVD release which i am currently flogging on Ebay....

I wonder if there is a separate release coming as i know the UK will be selling the first three films and The Animatrix separate outside of a boxed set but i would rather buy the U.S. ones due to silly UK pricing structures.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #200 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 05:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

If memory serves me right, I think quite a number of members expressed disappointment with the macroblocking in Revolutions.

Did they notice the macroblocks during playback or during upzoomed screencaps?
MovieSwede is offline  
post #201 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 07:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jvillain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 2,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


with the macroblocking in Revolutions.

If there is left over disk space there will be absolutely no excuse for that. Especially on a "premium" big buck multi disk release like this.
jvillain is offline  
post #202 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Title: The Matrix
Movie size: 28,44 GB
Disc size: 39,83 GB (10.17 GB space left)
Average video bit rate: 16.44 Mbps

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

Title: The Matrix Reloaded
Movie size: 26,00 GB
Disc size: 39,74 GB (10.26 GB space left)
Average video bit rate: 13.89 Mbps

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

Title: The Matrix Revolutions
Movie size: 24,26 GB
Disc size: 36,42 GB (13.58 GB space left)
Average video bit rate: 13.88 Mbps

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

Title: Constantine
Movie size: 21,23 GB
Disc size: 28,85 GB [21.15 GB space left]
Average video bit rate: 11.88 Mbps

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #203 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 07:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

I said we only think it's great because we haven't had an opportunity to see it look any better.

Maybe we think it looks great because we've actually seen the discs and have determined that they look great. Unlike some people, who have not seen the discs and yet feel the need to declare that their quality is insufficient.

Quote:


This is, afterall, the same studio intent on using lossy audio codecs despite the rest of the industry standardizing on either Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA

The Matrix movies have Dolby TrueHD audio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

As nice as it is to be dismissive of the discussion revolving around bitrate, the fact remains: where we have two titles encoded with the same codec but with differing bitrates we can usually pick out additional details in the higher bitrate encode.

You mean like with the Blu-ray release of 'The Thing', which has a higher bit-rate re-encoding and noticeably less detail than the HD DVD?

The bit rate is just a number. It tells you nothing about the quality of the transfer or the compression. If you bothered to actually watch the movie rather than the bit rate meter, you might have a better sense of when things actually look good or not.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #204 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 08:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GmanAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ridgewood, NJ
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Maybe we think it looks great because we've actually seen the discs and have determined that they look great. Unlike some people, who have not seen the discs and yet feel the need to declare that their quality is insufficient.



The Matrix movies have Dolby TrueHD audio.



You mean like with the Blu-ray release of 'The Thing', which has a higher bit-rate re-encoding and noticeably less detail than the HD DVD?

The bit rate is just a number. It tells you nothing about the quality of the transfer or the compression. If you bothered to actually watch the movie rather than the bit rate meter, you might have a better sense of when things actually look good or not.

Well said, thank you.
GmanAVS is offline  
post #205 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 09:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The bit rate is just a number. It tells you nothing about the quality of the transfer or the compression.

The bit rate has no influence on the quality of the transfer but most certainly it is related to the quality of the compression. The bit rate sets an upper limit of achievable compression quality. How close the compression quality comes to that limit depends on the quality of the encoder and operator. How close visually that limit is to the uncompressed master (or losslessly compressed) depends on the actual material compressed. When talking to compressionists they tell you that VC-1 and AVC get very close to the look of the 1080p master in the range of 20-25 Mbit/s (with higher spikes as required). So if Warner compresses at an average of 13 Mbit/s they leave undoubtedly some quality on the table unless the master does not have 1080p detail to begin with. The Matrix trilogy is not hyperclean animation. What they leave on the table may not make a big difference, but a difference nonetheless. If there is blocking in some shots then the compression is obviously not as good as it should be. But blocking is only the most obvious compression problem. What else is missing is usually more subtle. It's noise, coarseness and softness that is not so obvious when the master is not available for comparison.
High bit rate does not mean superior picture and low does not mean bad picture, but the general correlation between bit rate and accuracy is given by information theory and there is no escaping it.
mhafner is offline  
post #206 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

When talking to compressionists they tell you that VC-1 and AVC get very close to the look of the 1080p master in the range of 20-25 Mbit/s (with higher spikes as required).

That number seems a bit high?

Usually if you can find what peak a encoding needs, its easier to guess what the avarage bitrate needs to be.

Since its rare that the avarage bitrate needs to be anywere near the peaks.


Also you save some bits that 2,35:1 movies isnt using as much screenarea as 1,77:1 movies.


And remember the peakbitrate of BD was never selected by the basis of what AVC and VC1 needs.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #207 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Mel2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I know bitrates can be overrated but the truth is when a bitrate is very low, like single digits, it can have an effect on PQ. I've seen discs where the bitrates are very high but the PQ is still average. I actually put on sony's underworld last night after watching the matrix movies. for comparison since both were shot visually the same. the transfer for underworld, which is excellent, suprassed the matrix movies in blacks, fine detail, and 3D pop. I saw compression issues. SQ was almost a wash, I had to volume match since truedhd tracks are softer than dts ma and pcm tracks. I hate volume matching, I like the volume in a general area. hence, I gave that advantage to underworld. matrix trilogy was good but I place it along the same tier as batman begins, too soft.
Mel2 is offline  
post #208 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 12:48 PM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel2 View Post

I actually put on sony's underworld last night after watching the matrix movies. for comparison since both were shot visually the same. the transfer for underworld, which is excellent, suprassed the matrix movies in blacks, fine detail, and 3D pop. I saw compression issues. SQ was almost a wash, I had to volume match since truedhd tracks are softer than dts ma and pcm tracks. I hate volume matching, I like the volume in a general area. hence, I gave that advantage to underworld. matrix trilogy was good but I place it along the same tier as batman begins, too soft.

Perhaps shot with a similar visual style and both in Super 35 but The Matrix used different camera systems from Panavision while Underworld used Arriflex camera's....Thus i don't actually think you can compare image quality between the two films. The film was also developed at different laboratories which can also change things....Thus no comparisons can really be drawn that way.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #209 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel2 View Post

matrix trilogy was good but I place it along the same tier as batman begins, too soft.

There is a huge difference with BB, Underworld and the Matrix.

You cant really compare different movies.

Different filmstocks will have a bigger impact then the bitrate.

Different lenses will have bigger impact then the bitrate.

Different lighting will have bigger impact then the bitrate.

If you gonna look on the bitrate variable, you must have the same source, same codec, same compressionist, same version of the encoder.

Then you can see the difference bitrate will have.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #210 of 774 Old 10-11-2008, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TheCrackedJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's always interesting to hear people call a movie, "too soft" when there is no evidence to show that the theatrical version, the way it was shot was ever intended to be anything different.

Now obviously, there are some discs that have a PQ that is a poor representation of what the movie should look like. But, I've seen nothing like this on The Matrix or have any reason to believe this is an unfaithful transfer of the movie.

And as far as different bit rates are concerned, I've yet to see an instance where one disc had a noticeable difference when you watch it like a normal human being (IE, not blowing it up 200-300% and staring at it like an chicken hawk)

You know "that look" women get when they want sex? Me neither. - Steve Martin
TheCrackedJack is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

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