The Dark Knight comparison *PIX* - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Stevie76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arvika, Sweden
Posts: 842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I didn´t even notice the EE.
Guess I was was so into the story that I didn´t care/look for it
I give the PQ 4,5 out of 5!

Still waiting for those DVD screen as comparision

But seriously guys, no more "Dark Knight PQ sucks!!" threads after this one please.
Sound like a broken record by now

The world isn´t coming to an end
Stevie76 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

You make a good case playing devils ad. to not watch the first 40 years give or take of Hollywood movies based on PQ. Imagine if some passed up on some 1930's and 1940's titles because they didn't look like they should or could by today's standards.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Thank you Hughmc, and I agree

I think it is good that we can have a civil debate on this even if we dont all agree by the way and even though some of us are strongly opinionated (but in a respectful tone).


There is a difference between age related deterioration and simple limitation of various contributing factors of the older titles versus a brand spanking new high budget movie.
Older titles are only as good as the surviving elements and "videophiles" do not expect a new transfer of them to be as dazzling as a more modern film. Unless of course the originating sources are of excellent quality then those elements will provide an awesome picture.

TDK is a brand new film with years of technological refinement going for it. Transferred digitally rather than being optically duped eliminates deterioration of the original camera negative, from the rigors of editing, compositing, and duping.

There is no excuse for the presence of EE and DNR, there are a plenitude of other titles on BR that have similar origins to TDK, except of course those uberduper special Imax scenes, that do not suffer from these extraneous and unnecessary adjustments.

Yes those other films are shot differently along with other factors but if The Prestige looks so darn good and was made for less than TDK, why in the world does TDK look of a lesser quality than it? It stands to reason that it should look better than The Prestige since TDK is not going for say a stylized soft focus look.

Yes the BR looks better than DVD, but that is no longer the benchmark, yet it does not look as good as the full potential that BR is capable of conveying. Folks can split hairs over whether or not I know exactly what the filmmaker intended, it doesn't change the reality that PQ is not up to snuff and suffers from post digital 'enhancements'.

After having bought my fair share of 'improved' reissues I'm of the mind to buy a title one last time. If I'm going to pay a premium the company had better deliver, no more excuses because they have ability do provide an awesome product the first time round.

At least from the screen caps Xylon has shared with us, it is clear that this product is less than awesome. It is adequate and that is apparent from half the comments in the various threads about this issue and this movie in particular many are happy with a better compressed 1080P upconvert.

I'll say this to those that say EE and DNR is minor and claim that is great as is. You would have loved it even more if it had been done right the first time.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Lets go enjoy some great movies that hopefully have better treatment on our new format! Otherwise have fun with The Dismal Knight. ;{

PPS If it had been done right the first time, no one would be complaining and all would be enjoying thoroughly.

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #93 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 05:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Stevie76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arvika, Sweden
Posts: 842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by toe View Post

then i think that is a shame to put pq above the actual movie itself if they truly love the movie in question. If you truly love a movie and pass on it just because of pq issues, even though it is still the best version available i think you truly have your priorities out of line. Just my opinion.

+1
Stevie76 is offline  
post #94 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 06:03 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

There is a difference between age related deterioration and simple limitation of various contributing factors of the older titles versus a brand spanking new high budget movie.
Older titles are only as good as the surviving elements and "videophiles" do not expect a new transfer of them to be as dazzling as a more modern film. Unless of course the originating sources are of excellent quality then those elements will provide an awesome picture.

TDK is a brand new film with years of technological refinement going for it. Transferred digitally rather than being optically duped eliminates deterioration of the original camera negative, from the rigors of editing, compositing, and duping.

There is no excuse for the presence of EE and DNR, there are a plenitude of other titles on BR that have similar origins to TDK, except of course those uberduper special Imax scenes, that do not suffer from these extraneous and unnecessary adjustments.

Yes those other films are shot differently along with other factors but if The Prestige looks so darn good and was made for less than TDK, why in the world does TDK look of a lesser quality than it? It stands to reason that it should look better than The Prestige since TDK is not going for say a stylized soft focus look.

Yes the BR looks better than DVD, but that is longer the benchmark, yet it does not look as good as it the full potential that BR is capable of conveying. Folks can split hairs over whether or not I know exactly what the filmmaker intended, it doesn't change the reality that PQ is not up to snuff and suffers from post digital 'enhancements'.

After having bought my fair share of 'improved' reissues I'm of the mind to buy a title one last time. If I'm going to pay a premium the company had better deliver, no more excuses because they have ability do provide an awesome product the first time round.

At least from the screen caps Xylon has shared with us, it is clear that this product is less than awesome. It is adequate and that is apparent from half the comments in the various threads about this issue and this movie in particular many are happy with a better compressed 1080P upconvert.

I'll say this to those that say EE and DNR is minor and claim that is great as is. You would have loved it even more if it had been done right the first time.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Lets go enjoy some great movies that hopefully have better treatment on our new format! Otherwise have fun with The Dismal Knight. ;{

When you watched it on BD what did you think of the film?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #95 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:09 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
Let me just say that it doesn't matter to me at all if people want to pass on buying it or what.

However, if you absolutely love this movie and don't buy it because of these issues it would be akin to saying to your wife:

"Sorry honey, but you've put on a little weight and don't look as good as you could have. Why don't you take a hike and come back when you look a little better."

Personally, I think it sucks that there are some issues here. However, it's one of my favorite movies so I will be buying it regardless. Hell, 10 years ago I knew that something better than DVD would come out and I still bought them. I just wanted to watch movies that I like at home.

You know "that look" women get when they want sex? Me neither. - Steve Martin
TheCrackedJack is offline  
post #96 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Then I think that is a shame to put PQ above the actual movie itself IF they truly love the movie in question. If you truly LOVE a movie and pass on it just because of PQ issues, even though it is still the best version available I think you truly have your priorities out of line. Just my opinion.

Agreed. I am not saying that flaws should be swept under the carpet, and I think Warner could have done a better job with the transfer, but it is not like the PQ is a total train wreck either. I am noticing more and more that if there is even a hint of EE or DNR some people come unglued (see the Bond thread, Band Of Brothers, Baraka, etc). I think it is great that people strive for perfection, but I also think they get so caught up in it that they forget to just sit back and enjoy the movie.
ack_bk is offline  
post #97 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:34 PM
Member
 
mikehalper1x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: northeast ohio
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i am not purchasing this movie because of the treatment it got. i enjoyed the movie, and i would love to own it. i had it preordered, in fact, but i just canceled. the only way to get studios to stop ruining movies is to stop buying them. if every time a movie looks terrible, you say "well, it's the best available!" and buy it, then the studio loses NOTHING by putting in EE/whatever. the images i'm seeing look very inconsistent and not on par with what i'm used to seeing / paying for. in a catalog title, that might be acceptable, or i just wouldn't care all that much. but a movie this big, looking that bad, is not going to make its way into my collection.
mikehalper1x is offline  
post #98 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:35 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I think you truly have your priorities out of line. Just my opinion.

But that is your opinion and just as you are due your opinion others should be able to express theirs even those who do not agree with you.
I am one who puts PQ first especially when its my money.

If people stopped buying a title because of pour PQ I bet the studios would get the message loud and clear and I doubt you'd be complaining if the efforts your fellow forum members put forth made a difference.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #99 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:45 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

But that is your opinion and just as you are due your opinion others should be able to express theirs even those who do not agree with you.
I am one who puts PQ first especially when its my money.

If people stopped buying a title because of pour PQ I bet the studios would get the message loud and clear and I doubt you'd be complaining if the efforts your fellow forum members put forth made a difference.

My only question is how do studios differentiate why people didn't buy a title? Are they going to use internet message boards and calculate the number of complaints here versus complaints of high selling movies?

There are probably hundreds of reasons why a title wouldn't sell well or why a person wouldn't buy a title. And the studios could interpret it in hundreds of ways why a title didn't sell well. So unless there is a foolproof way of making sure they know why, I don't know how sound that method would be.

But you are always welcome to not buy something that doesn't live up to your standards. Just curious as to why you are so sure they will know why you aren't buying.

You know "that look" women get when they want sex? Me neither. - Steve Martin
TheCrackedJack is offline  
post #100 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:55 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

But that is your opinion and just as you are due your opinion others should be able to express theirs even those who do not agree with you.
I am one who puts PQ first especially when its my money.

If people stopped buying a title because of pour PQ I bet the studios would get the message loud and clear and I doubt you'd be complaining if the efforts your fellow forum members put forth made a difference.

I don't think its going to make a difference, This movie will sell to the general public who don't give two hoots about ht. Lets be realistic here,were a miniorty group.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #101 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I can see the issues in these screencaps, but I can live with how this looks. This is a must-buy for me, I'm looking forward to getting a copy. I don't think the EE issues will be too pronounced on my humble setup.

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
post #102 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:58 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCrackedJack View Post

My only question is how do studios differentiate why people didn't buy a title? Are they going to use internet message boards and calculate the number of complaints here versus complaints of high selling movies?

There are probably hundreds of reasons why a title wouldn't sell well or why a person wouldn't buy a title. And the studios could interpret it in hundreds of ways why a title didn't sell well. So unless there is a foolproof way of making sure they know why, I don't know how sound that method would be.

But you are always welcome to not buy something that doesn't live up to your standards. Just curious as to why you are so sure they will know why you aren't buying.

I agree like the studios really care with people on the forums complaining.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #103 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 07:59 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

I can see the issues in these screencaps, but I can live with how this looks. This is a must-buy for me, I'm looking forward to getting a copy. I don't think the EE issues will be too pronounced on my humble setup.

Exactly watch it first.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #104 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 08:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Maybe it's just me, but I think the two close-up 35mm shots of the Joker that Xylon posted look really good. In fact, I got the impression that he posted them to show good looking shots, since he had previously posted some real eye-openers in terms of the obvious EE, and he said that the transfer was all over the place, with some of it looking very good. Maybe I'm wrong about Xylon's intentions there and the Joker shots are supposed to illustrate the bad as well, but when I saw them, my first thought was, "Ah, he's showing us how inconsistent it is, here's one of the good 35mm shots".

In contrast, the shot of THE PRESTIGE that you posted looks so soft, it looks like it's slightly out of focus to me.

Vincent

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderG View Post

To get things back on topic, this shot right here is awful and unacceptable. The image is so processed that the Joker's face looks very muddy and lacking in definition. Definitely NOT a result of 35mm film use, either... Take a look at Pfister's work using the same filming techniques in The Prestige:



The Prestige just looks so much more natural, filmic and has a much more pleasing look to it.

Vincent Pereira is offline  
post #105 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 08:17 PM
Member
 
sheldonison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehalper1x View Post

i am not purchasing this movie because of the treatment it got.

I saw it in IMAX. imho, I didn't see that much EE, in the screen shots, but I'm not bothered by EE in blu-rays unless the EE is strong enough to produce visible halo artifacts.

What I do notice is the slight lack of sharp focus in the non-IMAX scenes in the Dark Knight screen shots. But I notice the same slight softness in most anamorphic 35 movies, including the Prestige, which is one of my favorite blu-rays in terms of both the story and in therms of the PQ. In contrast, Tier-0 blu-rays like Pirates of the Carribean appear extremely sharp, but I imagine there's a little bit of EE going on in those releases as well.

By contrast, the IMAX screen shots appear naturally crystal sharp, which is pretty cool. But whatever EE there is in the non-imax scenes, it is in the range of acceptable. IMHO, as a still photographer, there's an acceptable range. Sometimes, a flat "soft" print is what you like, and sometimes a little EE to make a print "pop" is what you like. I think its the same for blu-rays.
sheldonison is offline  
post #106 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sound dropouts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


In contrast, the shot of THE PRESTIGE that you posted looks so soft, it looks like it's slightly out of focus to me.

Nolan's movies ALL look soft. The problem with the 35 mm footage of the dark knight is that it is processed and sharpened, ie, not what was originally shot. Plus, the artifacts caused by this sharpening are highly annoying.
sound dropouts is offline  
post #107 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 08:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts View Post

Nolan's movies ALL look soft. The problem with the 35 mm footage of the dark knight is that it is processed and sharpened, ie, not what was originally shot. Plus, the artifacts caused by this sharpening are highly annoying.

Well, I disagree about those specific shots of the Joker.

And, that particular close-up from THE PRESTIGE that Alexander used would normally have folks screaming "DNR!!!" around these parts.

I agree, other shots Xylon posted show the obvious EE, but the two 35mm close-ups of the Joker look "correct" to me.

Vincent
Vincent Pereira is offline  
post #108 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 09:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WiFi-Spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,296
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Xylon,

Why is the framing different on the IMAX scenes from the prologue vs. BD?

Did you use the exact same frame from each?

Tyler Pruitt - Technical Liaison at SpectraCal
WiFi-Spy is offline  
post #109 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 09:19 PM
Senior Member
 
xlr231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To me it looks almost like they degraded the 35mm footage so the imax looks better. The 35mm shots look almost like DRN was applied then they overlayed an artificial digital grain.
xlr231 is offline  
post #110 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 09:41 PM
Senior Member
 
fiddlesticks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiFi-Spy View Post

Xylon,

Why is the framing different on the IMAX scenes from the prologue vs. BD?

Did you use the exact same frame from each?

That was my question also - is it because the BD is cropped to 1.85? Is it consistently cropped? That one shot behind the Joker, his damn feet are cut off! They should have just left it in the damn correct AR and made the IMAX version an option, now that I've seen these screenshots.

Seems to me like this release has been gimped on several levels for the eventual double-dip. I'll still buy this cause it's the best version available and I can't go see it in the IMAX theater again, but it's definitely not all it could be.
fiddlesticks is offline  
post #111 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 09:48 PM
 
hdblu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I love your work keep up with great PIX work
hdblu is offline  
post #112 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 09:56 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 fiddlesticks View Post

That was my question also - is it because the BD is cropped to 1.85? Is it consistently cropped? That one shot behind the Joker, his damn feet are cut off! They should have just left it in the damn correct AR and made the IMAX version an option, now that I've seen these screenshots.

People complain so much about black bars on the top and bottom; the focus group of d-bags thought their heads were going to explode if they were on the sides to. So the IMAX scenes take up the whole screen.

Whoa those screen shots of the 35mm sources look nothing like the presentation I saw at my local digital cinema. Even if this wasn't TDK, I would go 'yuck'. Yuck.

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 #113 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 10:06 PM
Member
 
H.Cornerstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am still trying to figure out why the Imax prologue looks different/better than the blu-ray....
H.Cornerstone is offline  
post #114 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 11:00 PM
Senior Member
 
jayhawk11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiFi-Spy View Post

Xylon,

Why is the framing different on the IMAX scenes from the prologue vs. BD?

Did you use the exact same frame from each?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post

That was my question also - is it because the BD is cropped to 1.85? Is it consistently cropped? That one shot behind the Joker, his damn feet are cut off! They should have just left it in the damn correct AR and made the IMAX version an option, now that I've seen these screenshots.

Seems to me like this release has been gimped on several levels for the eventual double-dip. I'll still buy this cause it's the best version available and I can't go see it in the IMAX theater again, but it's definitely not all it could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.Cornerstone View Post

I am still trying to figure out why the Imax prologue looks different/better than the blu-ray....


The prologue that was put on the Batman Begins disc was shot and put on before final production had been completed (I'm not even sure if principal photography was complete at that point). Nolan decided to change the framing and color correction while in post-production, hence the change evident between shots.

Trust me, it's nothing that Xylon is doing. That's actually the difference between the two.

Wanna make your Mac "teh snappy"? Visit
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jayhawk11 is offline  
post #115 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 11:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Just thought I'd take you all through the intricate process of "enhancing" the picture quality to IMAX standards. Studies show that when the average jock a-hole sees the end result of this process, they are much more likely to be wowed by it, resulting in massive $ flow.

Apple Trailer


Apple Trailer after contrast increase


Apple Trailer after contrast increase, 1920>1700>1920, and unsharp mask


Blu-ray


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #116 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 11:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stumlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, that last image is hard on the eyes.

Now I am curious how this will look on Apple TV, or any other service with HD downloads.

Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia, activate the machine!
stumlad is offline  
post #117 of 1594 Old 11-29-2008, 11:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cobolisdead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Prattville, AL
Posts: 1,961
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Well, it sucks that the image quality isn't on par with what we should be getting, but it's the best we have at the moment. For that reason, I have this film Pre-ordered off of Amazon.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
cobolisdead is offline  
post #118 of 1594 Old 11-30-2008, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 31
In the new br release, Batman has a red glint in his eyes (per directorial intent), and thus is a replicant.

I need your sweet love, Rosetta Stone girl!
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #119 of 1594 Old 11-30-2008, 12:43 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,056
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

But that is your opinion and just as you are due your opinion others should be able to express theirs even those who do not agree with you.
I am one who puts PQ first especially when its my money.

If people stopped buying a title because of pour PQ I bet the studios would get the message loud and clear and I doubt you'd be complaining if the efforts your fellow forum members put forth made a difference.

Even over the movie itself when it is a movie you are truly in love with which a LOT of people are with this title? Is PERFECT PQ so important that you will pass up on your favorite all time movies because they are not perfect even though they are the best available version on home media? I dont get that, sorry.

I agreee though, everyone should speak up. I dont think I ever discouraged that even though I feel very strongly about my opinion. We are all entitled to have a word here. Like I said, lets have a friendly debate on this even if we just have to agree to disagree.

I understand what you guys are trying to do, but unfortunately the incredibly small number of people who this bothers enough to not buy the film is insanely small (I allready have 3 scheduled showings of this film the week it comes out for family and friends and none of them know what EE is or even care. I would be nuts to not buy this film for this issue alone). This will not have enough of an impact on the sales of this title to matter as it is going to break sales records no matter what.

I think you guys who are so passionate about these issues (and believe it or not, I am thankful) could find a better way to get your point across to Warner and the other studios who have produced transfers that are not all they should be. For the most part, you are preaching to the choir by being as vocal as you are at AVS since most of the videophiles come here. What about gathering up all this evidence and trying to get it into some hands of people that could have an impact in accomplishing your goal? There has to be a more productive way besides what is going on here.

Anyway, I cant wait to get a copy of this and am very excited for the 3 screenings I have planned allready and there will probably be atleast 1 or 2 more before Christmas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I agree like the studios really care with people on the forums complaining.


Agreed. You guys can figure out a more productive way to get your point across. A small group of AVSers bitching in a chat room will provide at best entertainment value for somebody at Warner. They certainly will not take this too seriously the way it is being presented right now. If this was presented the right way though, I think it could have impact and even if it is hopless for this particular title (which I think it is), it could help with future titles. I would support that as I think that is a productive type of action, but what we are doing here is not IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Just to add my input left the movie for last night ,(Saturday night)to watch and thoroughly enjoyed it. Awesome film, im glad I bought it.I was to immersed in the film to even notice, I thought the PQ was great. Audio was fantastic.

I have a feeling the vast majority of viewers will have this same type of experience. Cant wait to get my copy

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #120 of 1594 Old 11-30-2008, 01:08 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

allready have 3 scheduled showings of this film the week it comes out for family and friends and none of them know what EE is or even care.

Exactly! I've just shown this to my older brother (Who has no care for BD) and he loved it, I asked him what he thought about the PQ and he was blown away. And on another note when it gets released officially I bet there will be alot of PS3 owners who buy this on BD and will enjoy it just as much as he did.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
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