"The Dark Knight" PQ issues. - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 09:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
badboi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon (Home Farm, Emmerdale, Yorks)
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader424242 View Post

Soooo.... the root kit fiasco is just a "conspiracy theory" that never took place? Whatever.

Never said it didn't happen. In fact, I had a few of the discs that were root kit infected. However, I didn't get my tits in a twist over it. I never put them in my computer in the first place. I have a Rotel cd player that I use for listening to cds. If you are one who likes to make copies of your discs, then yeah, I can see where the tit twisting came into play.
badboi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 09:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Actually, its the other way around, since Nolan selected the master for this movie, he is more to blame then Warner.

Warner on the other hand can be blamed for 2 things.

1. That they let Nolan select the master (in most cases this is a good thing)

2. That no one told Nolan what artifacts that was on the IMAX master. Im sure if he knew he maybe would have wanted another master (considering they didnt use a DI for BB because they didnt want the artifacts a DI can create)

"no one told Nolan what artifacts that was on the IMAX master" - are you serious here? So, apparently the director and the studio publishing and distributing his film should have contacted the "experts" here at AVS first? They are so oblivious that they don't know which master to use? For one of the top films of all time? Really?

I mean, it's not like Nolan was behind the actual IMAX camera that filmed the damn movie or anything. It's not like he has probably seen every frame 1000's of times or anything. Do you know how incredibly insulting your comment is to the director?

Obviously Nolan and WB are a bunch of amateurs at this stuff. They should run everything through AVS first and foremost to get the "screenshot seal of approval".

Do you realize how ridiculous this all sounds? And is?

Look - I am no supporter of WB with their lackluster lossless support and ho-hum video encodes. But this thread is beyond belief. It is almost beyond extremism into levels of absurdity.

I urge all of you that seem to hate this bluray to log in to the directors chat and confront Nolan abouts how poor of a choice was amde for this home video release. Meanwhile everyone else will probably be talking about things like, oh, I don't know - the movie itself? And how the bluray blows away any other version? What weirdos they are....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

True, and he should also have seen the IMAX version and aproved it, so its his fault.

But I forgive him, he gave us Batman begins, so I cant really be mad at him.

You "forgive" him? How nice of you.

You are basically insulting the man's knowledge about HIS OWN FILM!

It's "his fault"? Are you kidding me?

How lofty of you....I suppose you have directed a billion dollar film or two?
bt12483 is offline  
post #723 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 09:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tripleM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassmonkeee View Post

It took place. It just wasn't Sony that did it. It was Sony BMG Music. Which is not the same company as Sony. Different management. Different employees.

It's like blaming everyone named Rick for a Rick-Roll.

But, you know, carry on with your baseless point.


Just like Enron? right...

Panasonic TC-P60ST60 + Sony STR-DG810 + LG BH200 + JBL L830's x2 + JBL LC1 + JBL Loft40 x 2 + Polk PSW10 + Harmony One
tripleM is offline  
post #724 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 09:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

I'll make a quick quip before I skedaddle off to work.

Blu-Ray has been repeatedly marketed as "Perfect" and "Beyond HD".
Such proclamations tend to imply a level of exceptional quality. With a bounty of quality titles that actually live up to the hype and expectations without the usage of DNR and variants and serve as excellent exemplars for comparison.

Why is there continual rationalizations when a release falls short of its' formats lofty declarations of "Look and Sound of Perfect"?

When I'm paying a premium for a product that claims to be truly exceptional I expect it to meet those assertions. I don't need a 1080P upconvert that doesn't have mpeg2 compression artifacts.

Best Regards
KvE

Yeah - well I just had a bag of Doritos that said "new and improved". Funny thing is they tasted the same as they did 5 years ago.

It's called marketing. Maybe you have heard of it?
bt12483 is offline  
post #725 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 09:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ILJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Start copy and pasting those "pro" reviews.

This is not going to be pretty.

While the same reviews getting pasted over and over could be annyoing, I don't understand this. Pasting the "con" reviews is OK? Page after page of panic-stricken bandwagon-jumpers who haven't even seen the movie shouldn't have an opposing side of reviews from people who actually have seen the movie?

Screenshots and guesses at to what's causing what some people are guessing are problems is fine, when it pertains to PQ, and IMO, only when the entire movie's actually been seen. The mass hysteria and rash conclusions based solely on them...not so much. But it seems to go to a whole new level when people don't even want an opposing viewpoint from the reviewers who've actually seen the product.

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

Still looking for a movie theatre that shows movies the way they're SUPPOSED to be viewed...



...with a bitrate meter and screencaps.
ILJG is offline  
post #726 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 09:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,843
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 117
This thread has received too many report posts. Reading through the last several pages, I can see why.

Please remember to attack the post, but not the poster. This rule includes attacking other sites too.

Let's watch language and "name calling".

In addition to potential warnings and infractions, moderators may ban members from posting/participating in this thread.

I would encourage ppl to "have their say" and move on. ....no reason to beat a dead horse once you've made your position known on this title and/or the reported "issues" involved.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
Feeler: I'm thinking of selling my JTR Triple 8HT's Let me know if you are interested?
For Sale: ACS PlanarTrap (freestanding acoustic panel) ($300/pair)[/B]:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-au...tic-panel.html
rboster is offline  
post #727 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

While the same reviews getting pasted over and over could be annyoing, I don't understand this. Pasting the "con" reviews is OK? Page after page of panic-stricken bandwagon-jumpers who haven't even seen the movie shouldn't have an opposing side of reviews from people who actually have seen the movie?

Screenshots and guesses at to what's causing what some people are guessing are problems is fine, when it pertains to PQ, and IMO, only when the entire movie's actually been seen. The mass hysteria and rash conclusions based solely on them...not so much. But it seems to go to a whole new level when people don't even want an opposing viewpoint from the reviewers who've actually seen the product.

I have seen the entire movie and it has EE as I brought to everyone's attention. Those with smaller displays I expect may not notice or care but fact is it is there and nothing can change this. Glad to see Peter make mention of it as most reviewers ether screen these on small displays or rarely cover PQ in depth.
For myself it was still a very enjoyable movie and a worthy purchase.
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.
As mentioned by others this IS the best we will see this title unless Warner double dips but I doubt they will re encode for that one.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #728 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

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.

A sad irony, considering the DNR and EE appear to have been applied specifically for the purpose of improving the image quality for large screens.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #729 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:10 AM
Member
 
Steen DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

When you rent it and actually see and hear TDK, and for some strange reason it looks and sounds wonderful, are you still not going to buy it unless it's < $10?

If it looks fantastic I might pay full price for it. But burning my hands, or rather wasting my money, on the horrid HD-DVD of Ran has made me vary (I paid $35 for that garbage).

Quote:


Why would the need even exist to wait for it to drop below $10 as you've already made up your mind here

Because I don't mind a less than stellar transfer if I haven't paid as much for it. Is that so hard to understand?

Quote:


especially if it's your favorite comic movie of all time

I think it's an ok popcorn flick. Nothing more.
Steen DK is offline  
post #730 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:14 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

I have seen the entire movie and it has EE as I brought to everyone's attention. Those with smaller displays I expect may not notice or care but fact is it is there and nothing can change this. Glad to see Peter make mention of it as most reviewers ether screen these on small displays or rarely cover PQ in depth.
For myself it was still a very enjoyable movie and a worthy purchase.
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.
As mentioned by others this IS the best we will see this title unless Warner double dips but I doubt they will re encode for that one.

I only have a small problem with this statement:

Quote:


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.

In my opinion, this is another example of an overly dramatic blanket statement.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #731 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
hawkeye3.1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bt12483 View Post



"no one told Nolan what artifacts that was on the IMAX master" - are you serious here? So, apparently the director and the studio publishing and distributing his film should have contacted the "experts" here at AVS first? They are so oblivious that they don't know which master to use? For one of the top films of all time? Really?

...

Do you realize how ridiculous this all sounds? And is?

Did you miss the part where multiple sources have confirmed that the imagery captured on 35mm film had to be sharpened so it did not look excessively lo-res compared to the IMAX captures.

When an industry giant (who typically says nothing negative by nature), states that some parts of the IMAX presentation suffer from "digititis", its time to admit that some compromises were considered acceptable in the BD release of this title.

Might be a good time to switch to decaf, btw.
hawkeye3.1 is offline  
post #732 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
patrick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

I only have a small problem with this statement:



In my opinion, this is another example of an overly dramatic blanket statement.

Yes, the EE is visible on "smaller screens" without needing to have the image projected on a large ten-foot screen.
patrick99 is offline  
post #733 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:22 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 jrcorwin View Post

I only have a small problem with this statement:



In my opinion, this is another example of an overly dramatic blanket statement.

Again, on a 60" Elite plasma from 9 feet away, it's quite noticable. Remember, it's not constant but the EE monster rears it's ugly head quite a bit.
paul nyc is offline  
post #734 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
maxleung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Blu-ray.com describes that as the "glow" effect of filming in bright outdoors, but obviously that is not the case.

LOL! That is even more hilarious than IDLG's (unintentionally?) funny posts!

Sorry, that glow effect cannot be from photography, unless you have massive chromatic abberration, and even then, you would see a blue/magenta halo, and only when there is a dark object with an incredibly bright (sky) background. Like tree leaves and branches against the sky. Just look at camera reviews at dpreview.com, or a decent camera lens manual.

IDLG humourously wrote:

Quote:


Good questions, and I certainly don't know. But I really don't think DNR or EE can be blamed for the "sunlight differences" we've noticed.

Hahahaha. The production crew probably spent half a day setting up that scene and did multiple takes - over the hours, the sun will shift, and in the editing process they would pick different shots to get the effect they wanted.

Has everyone forgotten everything they learned from watching DVD extras over the last 10 years?
maxleung is offline  
post #735 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:24 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Saying that EE is visible is far different than saying that the image falls apart.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #736 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:25 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

As mentioned by others this IS the best we will see this title unless Warner double dips but I doubt they will re encode for that one.


Exactly. This is THE BEST this movie will look most likely. Highly doubt there will be a re encode at all. To pass on this awesome film because of a few minor PQ issues is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

Saying that EE is visible is far different than saying that the image falls apart.

Agreed. Again, we are blowing things WAY out of proportion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

I only have a small problem with this statement:



In my opinion, this is another example of an overly dramatic blanket statement.

+1.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #737 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Tom J. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: IN
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So what happens to the "constant height" people when they watch this blu-ray?
Tom J. Davis is offline  
post #738 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye3.1 View Post

Did you miss the part where multiple sources have confirmed that the imagery captured on 35mm film had to be sharpened so it did not look excessively lo-res compared to the IMAX captures.

When an industry giant (who typically says nothing negative by nature), states that some parts of the IMAX presentation suffer from "digititis", its time to admit that some compromises were considered acceptable in the BD release of this title.

Might be a good time to switch to decaf, btw.

I am fully aware of the "issues" that the IMAX portions of the film are causing (both with regards to the AR changes and the "sharpening"). But if this "digititis" was done for the theatrical release - what are we to expect for the home release? I guess we all just need to pony up for our own personal IMAX screens, huh?

I have nothing else to say but don't buy it. If you are that upset - don't even watch it. Why waste another ~2.5 hours of your life on something that is merely a sum of "compromises"?

The bluray will obviously be the best verison of this film - but apparently that means nothing if it isn't "perfect". How do you think the DVD will fair? The Vudu version? Especially the HDX version?

So either don't buy/watch it, rent it, or wait until 20xx when WB inevitably double dips - MAYBE it will be a version without "compromises".
bt12483 is offline  
post #739 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc View Post

Again, on a 60" Elite plasma from 9 feet away, it's quite noticable. Remember, it's not constant but the EE monster rears it's ugly head quite a bit.

I am confused. Your first post in this thread stated that you saw no EE on the same setup from 9ft away:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...3&postcount=23

Quote:


Originally Posted by patrick99
Any comments on the presence of EE?

And your response:

Quote:


None on a 60" plasma. Can't comment on any larger screen size.

Now you are saying it is "quite noticeable". If it is quite noticeable how come you did not see it the first time you watched it? And if this thread would not have existed at all, I really wonder if you would have ever noticed it..
ack_bk is offline  
post #740 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ILJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

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.

Thx.

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.

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

Still looking for a movie theatre that shows movies the way they're SUPPOSED to be viewed...



...with a bitrate meter and screencaps.
ILJG is offline  
post #741 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

I am confused. Your first post in this thread stated that you saw no EE on the same setup from 9ft away:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...3&postcount=23



And your response:



Now you are saying it is "quite noticeable". If it is quite noticeable how come you did not see it the first time you watched it? And if this thread would not have existed at all, I really wonder if you would have ever noticed it..


Maybe he couldn't see it until someone told him where to look.
bt12483 is offline  
post #742 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:43 AM
 
briankmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 13,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I haven't watched it yet but sometimes I don't notice some of the technical flaws upon first viewing when I'm so engrossed in a film. And then if you are told what to look for and you remember seeing them once you'll probably see them the next time as well (like banding in some shots for Planet Earth and some weird flickering, I know when it is coming..)
briankmonkey is offline  
post #743 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:52 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I just finished watching The Dark Knight....Heres what i think. ( and i consider myself a fussy person )

The switch from 1.78:1 to 2.40:1 and back again wasn't an issue for me and indeed the first time it happened i was so engrossed in the movie i didn't even realise the ratio had changed until a few minutes into the changeover. So no issues as far as i am concerned regarding the changing of aspect ratio's during the movie.

Regarding the EE.....I thought it minor and only a handful of scenes were really bad but overall i considered it a minor issue...It shouldn't be there on a high definition release but at the same time i can live with it since i consider what i saw to be minor apart from a handful of scenes lasting a few seconds apiece. The scene which Kram had a screenshot of on these pages was indeed bad but lasted a few seconds only.

The image quality was high for this release especially the IMAX shot scenes which i felt had a more film like look to them....The 35mm shot scenes had in my opinion a slightly more harsh look probably due to the sharpening effect but it wasn't too bad but i just thought the IMAX shot scenes looked extra special regarding detail levels...I wish they had just shot the whole film using a 65mm ( 70mm ) format.

Good movie but i still prefer Batman Begins although both are good. Not the best film of the year though by any means....Heath Ledger was excellent as the joker though and really brought an intensity to the role....He will be missed as an actor.

Now i'm going to write a review for my own website - Don't worry mods i won't advertise it.....

I consider the image quality of this release to be mostly acceptable and generally of a high quality but like others here i do wish they could have avoided the EE but it's only really bad on a handful of scenes and i can live with it although at the same time i condemn it's use - I just hope this isn't the start of a trend and that EE is kept off of future releases.

This is a fair review, thanks. Minor EE and ONLY A handful of scenes lasting a few seconds that are realy bad is hardly fatal to a ~2.5 hour film. Dont know how anyone could let a handful of scenes lasting a few seconds a piece keep them from even viewing this movie (which they wont despite what is said here) or even buying it (which they wont, despite what is being said here).

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #744 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:55 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom J. Davis View Post

So what happens to the "constant height" people when they watch this blu-ray?

Their money spontaneously bursts into flames.

jrcorwin is offline  
post #745 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:57 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I just finished watching The Dark Knight....Heres what i think. ( and i consider myself a fussy person )

The switch from 1.78:1 to 2.40:1 and back again wasn't an issue for me and indeed the first time it happened i was so engrossed in the movie i didn't even realise the ratio had changed until a few minutes into the changeover. So no issues as far as i am concerned regarding the changing of aspect ratio's during the movie.

Regarding the EE.....I thought it minor and only a handful of scenes were really bad but overall i considered it a minor issue...It shouldn't be there on a high definition release but at the same time i can live with it since i consider what i saw to be minor apart from a handful of scenes lasting a few seconds apiece. The scene which Kram had a screenshot of on these pages was indeed bad but lasted a few seconds only.

The image quality was high for this release especially the IMAX shot scenes which i felt had a more film like look to them....The 35mm shot scenes had in my opinion a slightly more harsh look probably due to the sharpening effect but it wasn't too bad but i just thought the IMAX shot scenes looked extra special regarding detail levels...I wish they had just shot the whole film using a 65mm ( 70mm ) format.

Good movie but i still prefer Batman Begins although both are good. Not the best film of the year though by any means....Heath Ledger was excellent as the joker though and really brought an intensity to the role....He will be missed as an actor.

Now i'm going to write a review for my own website - Don't worry mods i won't advertise it.....

I consider the image quality of this release to be mostly acceptable and generally of a high quality but like others here i do wish they could have avoided the EE but it's only really bad on a handful of scenes and i can live with it although at the same time i condemn it's use - I just hope this isn't the start of a trend and that EE is kept off of future releases.

Thank your for the levelheaded review without the rhetoric employed by others.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #746 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

Saying that EE is visible is far different than saying that the image falls apart.

Well, when I watched it, big clumps of pixels were dessicating on the screen and falling off into my lap. I tried to collect them and mash them back into the corroded image, but most of them scurried off into the corner.

YMMV.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #747 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:57 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 ack_bk View Post

I am confused. Your first post in this thread stated that you saw no EE on the same setup from 9ft away:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...3&postcount=23



And your response:



Now you are saying it is "quite noticeable". If it is quite noticeable how come you did not see it the first time you watched it? And if this thread would not have existed at all, I really wonder if you would have ever noticed it..

Hi-

I know there's been a bunch of posts on this topic and it's easy to overlook. It seems you must have missed my post after my intial posting. Allow me to assist:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post15131200

Ok, i've been really watching this disc over and over. i have to change my initial response of 5/5 for PQ

The audio is great, but the vocal track is way too low. It's one of those soundtracks where you have to pump it up to reference level to enjoy it (think INDY IV). Yes, I know about the nightmode with THD.

PQ- It seems that indeed, edge enhancement is quite evident in certain medium to long shots, especially establishing shots. Moire patterns are so prominent, its to the point of distraction. I'm even seeing the patterns on people's ties! During the first shot of the film (helicopter establishing shot) I counted 4 separate patterns on buildings. During the sequence where Joker meets the mob discussing the money (pencil magic trick), the majority of the medium to long shots of mob guys sitting down has MAJOR edge enhancement while close up shots of Joker look fantastic. This seems to be a reoccurring procedure throughout the film. I just don't understand why they would do this. Some shots are simply stunning and jaw dropping, while others look very digitized with the edge enchantment switch turned up. Scratching my head on this one.

I'm watching on a 60" Elite Plasma (ISF calibrated) at 9-10 foot viewing distance with a BD-30
paul nyc is offline  
post #748 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ILJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen DK View Post

Because I don't mind a less than stellar transfer if I haven't paid as much for it. Is that so hard to understand?

No, not hard to understand, and I wasn't singling you out, sorry if you got that impression. People have asked lots of other people these questions.

And someone like you who had less of an interest in it I can understand the rental, although I'm not sure why you would have bought it in the first place if you really didn't want it, but hey, whatever. If you thought it was a given it would be good, and somehow the mass hysteria here proved otherwise (even with all the great reviews it's getting), it's certainly "better safe than sorry" to be sure you like it. I agree, there.

Where I get really lost is when people say it's their favorite movie of the year, best comic flick ever...and they LOVE it SOOOOOOO much .... that they cancel it based on 5-10 screenshots and opinion of people who for the most part haven't even seen it yet.

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

Still looking for a movie theatre that shows movies the way they're SUPPOSED to be viewed...



...with a bitrate meter and screencaps.
ILJG is offline  
post #749 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 11:00 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

they cancel it based on 5-10 screenshots and opinion of people who for the most part haven't even seen it yet.

It has been turning into an epidemic lately...
jrcorwin is offline  
post #750 of 1074 Old 11-25-2008, 11:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
As already noted by another moderator, once you have made your point, move on. Repeating the same comment is of no value.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Closed Thread Blu-ray Software

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