Originally Posted by Alan Gouger
Those with smaller displays ( much harder to see artifacts ) will no doubt consider this
very good PQ but sadly the image falls apart when projected on larger screen size.
I realize you watched the movie, my comment that you quoted was more geared to someone who seemed either to not want opposing views or didn't want the same reviews posted over and over. The latter I can understand, certainly not the former, if I understood the jist of what he posted.
Alan, I'm glad you decided to be REALLY radical and actually base your opinion on watching the movie. That's a good thing, and I don't want you to think it's not appreciated.
But please look at the above bolded statement. This, along with screenshots, is what people around here are running with. Without qualifying when and how much and for what duration "it falls apart," the same people panic and think the whole thing is bad. This thread is living proof of that irrational mindset.
In fact, see the first post of the thread:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger I just watched my copy. Regarding PQ why is it they have to mess with the block busters. I was disappointed to see someone applied good ole EE. The ringing is not to bad but its enough to leave the movie with what I call edginess at times during long distance shots it clearly rears its head. Sad. I had to make sure all sharpness setting were flat for this one but it did not help clean it up.
I screened this at 8 feet wide. I doubt anyone with a smaller display or flat panel will notice as this transfer will come off extra on these sets.
Other then this complaint I found the transfer/sound/movie enjoyable.
All follow ups please mention your display width.
Unlike the die-hard codec-blamers, specific-studio-blamers, and other assorted blamers with an agenda, I read your later postings in their entirety. In fact, in later postings you eventually said you considered it near-reference and gave it 8/10.
But by the time you posted that, the panic had started.
Again, if you qualify and quantify a bit better how much the problems exist, it would alleviate a lot of unnecessary commotion. Granted, some people will scream bloody murder just for seeing "DNR" and "EE" in a review, but if you were to say "in only a few long distance shots" or in "two or three" isolated 15 second shots, there might be a better understanding of the scope of the problem. If it were really longer than that, or more of the movie, which isn't altogther clear in your postings, that would be OK too, but you wouldn't have called it near-reference if that were the case, would you?
And leaving it at "but sadly the image falls apart when projected on larger screen size" seems way too vague, and unfortunately, misleading. If it completely fell apart, again, why would you have called it "near-reference?"
I am glad, though, that you at least watched it, and can clear up some of these issues.