AVS Forum banner

U-571 comparison *PIX*

35K views 183 replies 73 participants last post by  Stereodude 
#1 ·
#103 ·
DNR, edge enhancement, encoder and encode settings. So many knobs to twitter makes it easy to mess up. Especially when you can't see what you are doing. I get a kick out of every time I see people monitoring their work on a CRT based HD monitor. It doesn't work. The monitors themselves are filters (not to mention they use SMPTE C phosphors instead of HD.) That shadow mask and those phosphor stripes (or dots for old timers) and yoke technology (er, should I mention interlace and flicker?) do a great job of rolling off HD. Not to mention the small size of the screen. I'm afraid this will be a problem until broadcast and production figures out HD BVM's belong in dumpsters, not telecine bays or any kind of production environment. I won't mention names, but there are some out there trying to get it right. There is only one technology that works - DLP projection - and the vast majority of equipment manufactures don't even get that right. Those that do get a star on their collar - maybe even 3.
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun /forum/post/14519291





Image or sound drop out is a degradation if it wasn't there to begin with and it's due to the tape wear, which will occur like it or not at one point.
you obviously don't get it either, it took literally hundreds of viewings for this to start on D-VHS, in fact I never had a tape start exhibiting this and owned nearly all movie releases, some had areas that were viewed hundreds of times demoing my system and critiqing upgrades etc.


dropouts are not A/V degradation, they are signal loss, this is FUD that was spread about D-VHS for years, most people (even in this hobby) assumed that the tapes degraded visually with each viewing
, clean heads and proper handling/storage of the media = 100% perfect results for hundreds of viewings, which was way more than anyone would ever get close to, I have had more dropouts and errors on HD/BD media than I did with D-VHS



-Gary
 
#105 ·
Marshall, you actully made a post on AVS. Did hell freeze over? Can you pass the ice.



TVLogic LCDs are pretty common with some of the compression facilities now. This particular LCD actually makes compression artifacts easier to spot because it enhances the artifacts. I would never want to watch a movie on this display, but for compression it works well.
 
#106 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sspears /forum/post/14519441


I worked on the VC-1 encoder they use. It will hit the target within a tolerance.

Amir has said something along the lines of the encoder suggests what it thinks the optimal bitrate is after the first pass. Is that not the case?
 
#107 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sspears /forum/post/14518137


I don't believe the bitrate is lower on the BD version because of DVNR. When you set the avg. bitrate in an encoder, it will most likely hit it. If I encoded a movie w/ and w/o DVNR, and set the bitrate to x Mbps, then it will hit x Mbps.


I believe the bitrate is based on available disc space. I am confused, is this disc a BD25 or BD50?

Hi Stacy,


Welcome back. Could you please provide your sincere comments on the PQ of U-571 on both HD DVD and Blu-ray ?
 
#109 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir /forum/post/14517239


The only problem is the Mummy movies were on BD50s and still had some DNR applied.


Yeah, I have no clue what's going on there. The Mummy BD was a larger file size than the HD DVD also. Maybe they applied some DNR, got good reviews, and decided to try pushing it one level farther to test critical response. Maybe they figured out they could cut costs at the same time by using single layer?


I really have no idea what they are up to... just speculating like most in this thread.


Heck, it could be that they want these DNRd versions out there in the market to differentiate from the HD DVDs to give the clean freaks a reason to rebuy them?


Again, I have no idea. It could be anything.
 
#110 ·
Having looked at all the above screen caps I'd say all 3 formats looks identical and overall look great IMO. I see no issues worth getting irate over whatsoever.


I'd venture to guess that if anyone actually watched the movies side by side (vs. freeze frames) there's NO way anyone would notice ANYTHING wrong with any of the formats shown here...especially the white specs people are freaking out about...come on who's honestly going to notice this while the movie is running and you are at proper viewing distance?


I wouldn't hesitate for a second buying this movie on any of the above formats and best of all I'd enjoy every second of it since I really did enjoy this particular film.

 
#111 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lizardo /forum/post/14523016


Having looked at all the above screen caps I'd say all 3 formats looks identical and overall look great IMO. I see no issues worth getting irate over whatsoever.


I'd venture to guess that if anyone actually watched the movies side by side (vs. freeze frames) there's NO way anyone would notice ANYTHING wrong with any of the formats shown here...especially the white specs people are freaking out about...come on who's honestly going to notice this while the movie is running and you are at proper viewing distance?


I wouldn't hesitate for a second buying this movie on any of the above formats and best of all I'd enjoy every second of it since I really did enjoy this particular film.



Maybe you can't see it but there is a difference and it's not a tiny one. Both look better than dvd but to throw your hands up and say both look good enough isn't really doing justice to the format.
 
#112 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vriess /forum/post/14523034


Maybe you can't see it but there is a difference and it's not a tiny one. Both look better than dvd but their is no reason why the hd-dvd's should be the definitive version.

Again I'd be happy with any of the formats and thoroughly enjoy the movie..simple as that...I'm not an over analyzer and don't bother with which format is "supposed" to be the best especially when they all look identical to me..
 
#113 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJF /forum/post/14516701


I don't get it - how could it ever be not possible to use a BD50?


I would guess that a BD50 may cost more and possibly take longer to get a production run scheduled. Universal may have decided to try and fit what they can on BD25s for some of these "less important" catalog titles. .

Its all about the discs, baby. Either BD50's are hard to get or the price is too expensive.


Heroes Season 2 is a great example. It includes 2 BD50's and 2 BD25's. Why not 3 BD50's? Either Universal was unable to secure more BD50's or the price of BD25s (times two) is cheaper then a single BD50.


Take a look at The Scorpion King 2. Originally announced as a BD50 loaded with special features, gets down graded at the last moment to a BD25 with zero special features.


End of Days. BD25 and drops all the HD DVD special features.


U-571. Drops all the individual special features to incorporate them into a U-Control.


Miami Vice is a BD50 and has all the previous HD DVD special features plus a few more (though no Theatrical cut).


It looks like Universal finally might be correcting its mistakes with Knocked Up and 40 Year Old (both 50GB discs), but then comes along The Thing which may drop the 80 minute doc. Land of the Dead should be fine as it was originally on a 15GB/9DVD Combo disc and Dawn should be fine as well.
 
#115 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir /forum/post/14523648


Can't tell - is the film itself 14 or 21 gigs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir /forum/post/14523611


Anyone know the HD DVD file size for The Thing?

Movie size: 14,438,524,928 => 14.43 GB

Disc size: 21,196,942,048 => 21.19 GB

Average video bit rate: 15.02 Mbps [but still an excellent encode considering Universal's ho-hum track record with their catalog titles]

Code:
Code:
Dawn of the Dead (2004): Unrated DC     VC-1    1:49:07 18,798,559,232* 21,870,225,636  22.97   18.94   Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bit No      DDPlus 5.1  448Kbps
Land of the Dead: Director's Cut        VC-1    1:36:43 14,307,549,184 ~14,624,761,713  19.72  ~17.13   DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps     No
The Thing                               VC-1    1:48:35 14,438,524,928* 21,196,942,048  17.72   15.02   DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps     No
 
#116 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell /forum/post/14521307

you obviously don't get it either, it took literally hundreds of viewings for this to start on D-VHS, in fact I never had a tape start exhibiting this and owned nearly all movie releases, some had areas that were viewed hundreds of times demoing my system and critiqing upgrades etc.


dropouts are not A/V degradation, they are signal loss, this is FUD that was spread about D-VHS for years, most people (even in this hobby) assumed that the tapes degraded visually with each viewing
, clean heads and proper handling/storage of the media = 100% perfect results for hundreds of viewings, which was way more than anyone would ever get close to, I have had more dropouts and errors on HD/BD media than I did with D-VHS



-Gary


The tape gets stretched or wears out by touching the head and that's what cause the the drop outs, and yes it is a degradation since digital cannot wear out the way analog does slowly, but one day you'll see errors which you just admitted to already.
indeed! The same thing could happen to optical discs as well if it gets physically damaged, but that won't be caused by playback alone like it happens with tape formats. How long it takes is irrelevant, the fact that no tape format can escape this, is .
 
#118 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/14524108


Not so strange, since the critised Universal titles has old masters, were The Thing had a more fresh one.

Yes. In terms of new master, The Thing could be on similar lines to Troy but the biggest question is whether The Thing would fall victim to DNR.
 
#119 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/14517530


Knowing how Universal operates, it's unlikely that they would remaster the movie to get rid of the e.e., so they probably applied the DNR to the old master in order to tone down the ringing.

The transfer had EE from the D-Theater days and it's a pity. But applying DNR to get rid of EE artifacts is very silly since the tool is simply not designed to deal with ringing and haloes. That requires an inverse filter to the original sharpening filter. If information was destroyed by the original filter the EE can not be (completely) undone.
 
#120 ·
Whimsy agrees with us. Looks like Xylon has proven his point to the naysayers at HTF.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...some_more.html

Quote:
I first got wind of this when I took a look at DVD Beaver's review of The Mummy on Blu-ray. The article features a number of full resolution 1920x1080 screen captures, which immediately struck me as quite a bit more waxy-looking than how I remembered the HD DVD, which I had briefly rented some months prior. Of course, memory can play funny tricks on you, but a little later, the proof arrived in the form of an image comparison by AV Science Forum member Xylon, whose screen captures are one of the main reasons I visit that forum and are worth more than a thousand text-based reviews. The difference may not be massive, but it's there: Universal have added further noise reduction for the Blu-ray release. The Mummy Returns shows a similar situation: again, the Blu-ray version is noticeably less grainy and more synthetic-looking than its HD DVD counterpart.


Finally, today's scandal involves U-571, once again released on Blu-ray by Universal with a vulgar level of noise reduction applied to it. The difference should be clear to even the most visually-impaired of viewers: the HD DVD (and its D-Theater counterpart) was hardly a stellar-looking disc, but the Blu-ray version looks positively alarming, sucking much of the grain out of the image and rendering it fake-looking and waxy. Predictably, the usual suspects have emerged from the woodwork to decry Xylon's findings. Unfortunately, whatever such individuals might attempt to claim, the pictures speak for themselves and reveal the truth that no amount of whitewashing or "it doesn't look like that on my screen" nonsense can hide.


In summary: as a rule, Universal treated their catalogue titles rather badly on HD DVD, and now they are making them look even worse on Blu-ray. What will it take to hammer it into these fools' heads that this sort of image degradation is neither necessary or wanted?

From a HTF poster who talks about childish and personal attacks on the first paragraph, turns posters out here into monkeys in the next para.


Quote:
I mean that a technical community with the width and breadth of AVS should not allow direct personal (and frankly childish) attacks on industry insiders or anyone for that matter.
Quote:
Also I agree that Xylon provides a fantastic service to the HD community and his insights ARE valuable. It is how his work gets used as a weapon by the monkeys that have nothing better to do than foam at the mouth over every perceived slight to perfection is what I find tiring, and it is the personal attacks which I refuse to idly pass by.
 
#121 ·
I don't think this is a horrible example of DNR, as most of the detail has been preserved despite the DNR. Unlike Patton or Longest Day which are devoid of detail. It is obvious that the HD DVD version has more natural film graind as well as a smidge more detail - but the DNR applied here is relatively mild.


However, I think the complaint most have is that the HD DVD looks more accurate to the original film than the Blu-ray, and porting over the HD DVD encode (very easy to do, btw) would have been a wiser choice than doing a new encode that was actually worse than the HD DVD. This happened with Mummy 1 & 2 Blu-ray Discs also, the Blu-ray Discs had more DNR/EE & overblown contrast compared to the HD DVD.


Again, the overwhelming complaints seem to be that Universal is actually releasing new product that is worse than the old product, and that is a shame when the old product is so easily able to be migrated to Blu-ray.
 
#122 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyricardo /forum/post/14525557


I hate to bring up this point...and it's no offense to you personally...but you are a Universal BD reviewer and you most likely are receiving the discs free of charge. Your view is skewed because you did not personally pay for the titles your viewing The individuals that pay $20+ dollars for this title have a right to be disappointed that they were given an "inferior" product.

I'm a reviewer and didn't have the pay for the titles...still disappointed with this. Glad I held on to all my original HD DVDs.
 
#123 ·
As a reviewer myself who gets a small number of titles for free but pays for the rest, I don't think it really makes any difference whether or not I've handed over money for the product. At the end of the day, if it's sub-par, I'll be annoyed either way, just as, if a disc turns out to look really great, I'll be very happy. Obviously, to some degree you can argue that, if you didn't pay for a BD and it turns out to be disappointing, the knowledge that you haven't lost any money on it sweetens the pill do a degree, but at the same time you've still got to sink time into watching something that looks underwhelming, not to mention actually sit down and write about it. So, as much as I do sometimes wonder what my fellow reviewers are smoking (
), I honestly don't believe that getting a disc for free skews your view in any way.
 
#124 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadath /forum/post/14525418


I don't mean that as a perjorative insult but as reference to "Monkey see monkey do." Here's my example:




Um no, it hasn't. This here is the problem with the AVS echo chamber. You have Xylon who is presenting these screenshots with a minimum of hyperbole and then the pack mentality senses blood and there is a full on panic mode within 4 pages of replies.

Yes Uni has messed these up pretty bad. If you don't see how releasing inferior versions is a bad precedent I won't try to convince you. I'm not in panic mode I just realize that taking steps backwards is not something we should be doing with a higher quality format.


Your display may not show a large difference but these pictures do not lie, thank you for calling me a monkey though.
 
#125 ·

Quote:
Could you please provide your sincere comments on the PQ of U-571 on both HD DVD and Blu-ray ?

I was planning to replace my HD DVD with the BD, but now I am not. This is based on the screen shots in this thread.

Quote:
the encoder suggests what it thinks the optimal bitrate is after the first pass.

After the first pass the encoder has a good idea on which scenes are complex and which are easy. This helps the second pass decide on where to best spend the bits. It must still honor the average and peak bitrates provided by the user.
 
#126 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggles /forum/post/14517957


Amen to that. Keep up the good work, Xylon. Your pictures are worth a thousand words.

I think a more accurate statement would be..."Xylon. Your pictures are worth a thousand dollars!

Seriously XYLON you should become the final approval for all studios before they start pressing the discs!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top