The Dark Knight comparison *PIX* - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 10:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Maybe so, but if the 35mm prints did not have the EE, then the BD should not. It's just a terrible distraction.

One has to wonder if in the future all films that go through a DI process will be saddled with EE. This is a sickness that needs to be stomped out NOW.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 10:24 AM
sb1
AVS Special Member
 
sb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

One has to wonder if in the future all films that go through a DI process will be saddled with EE. This is a sickness that needs to be stomped out NOW.

Makes you wonder if those of us that appreciate unaltered video transfers are becoming a niche market that is losing the fight.

Stephen.

Chances are very good that I was drinking when I posted the above.

sb1 is offline  
post #243 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rover2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Makes you wonder if those of us that appreciate unaltered video transfers are becoming a niche market that is losing the fight.

It was not won with DVD, what makes you think they will change with BR?
rover2002 is offline  
post #244 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 11:22 AM
sb1
AVS Special Member
 
sb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover2002 View Post

It was not won with DVD, what makes you think they will change with BR?

Maybe some studios will fight for us every now and then.

Stephen.

Chances are very good that I was drinking when I posted the above.

sb1 is offline  
post #245 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
babrown92's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
We won the FS vs. widescreen battle so there may be some hope.
babrown92 is offline  
post #246 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 11:36 AM
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
With HD DVD Universal was one of worse culprits. Joe Kane had a meeting with them demonstrating side by side their authoring on one of their typical computer monitors and on a big projection screen.
It opened their eyes as to how bad some it looked, they had no clue.
Universal in my opinion has come a long way and ships some of the better transfers at least on new titles.

Spreading the word does yield results at times!!
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #247 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 11:39 AM
Member
 
AEguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Nine pages into the DVD vs. Blu-ray comparison thread; however, no actual DVD vs. Blu-ray comparisons.

Continue...
AEguy is offline  
post #248 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 11:48 AM
sb1
AVS Special Member
 
sb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Spreading the word does yield results at times!!

True. I just wish we had more word spreaders.

Stephen.

Chances are very good that I was drinking when I posted the above.

sb1 is offline  
post #249 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 11:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kroenen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Universal in my opinion has come a long way and ships some of the better transfers at least on new titles.

That's for sure! They have quickly become one of my favorite studios for new releases.

You watch a Donnie Yen movie to watch what Donnie does best - kick-ass!
Kroenen is offline  
post #250 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

With HD DVD Universal was one of worse culprits. Joe Kane had a meeting with them demonstrating side by side their authoring on one of their typical computer monitors and on a big projection screen.
It opened their eyes as to how bad some it looked, they had no clue.
Universal in my opinion has come a long way and ships some of the better transfers at least on new titles.

Spreading the word does yield results at times!!

Could that explain why they started to DNR old titles?

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #251 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 12:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
(Sorry if this has been mentioned already)

For the IMAX shots, it would be neat to see a comparison between
-the blu-ray
-the widescreen dvd
-the IMAX OAR on the second disc of the special edition dvd
-the fullscreen dvd
Fang Zei is offline  
post #252 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Maybe so, but if the 35mm prints did not have the EE, then the BD should not. It's just a terrible distraction.
One has to wonder if in the future all films that go through a DI process will be saddled with EE.

Very unlikely. Some of the best looking BDs are coming from DI as well. It's a tool. Some use it to best effect and some use it to destroy the film look.
mhafner is offline  
post #253 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 12:49 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 Matt_Stevens View Post

Maybe so, but if the 35mm prints did not have the EE, then the BD should not. It's just a terrible distraction.

One has to wonder if in the future all films that go through a DI process will be saddled with EE. This is a sickness that needs to be stomped out NOW.

Dark Knight didn't use the standard DI process. The 35mm scenes are the traditional anamorphic 35 film, which doesn't even need a DI, as opposed to Super-35 which always requires a DI. Furthermore, the master source for the blue-ray was the IMAX print. Perhaps a direct DI from the 35mm source would've worked better than the 35mm to IMAX to blu-ray process.

http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15888.shtml
"You also have to go in the other direction for the IMAX release. For these, the cut 35mm negative was color-timed at the lab [instead of a DI], producing an interpositive of the 35mm portions of the film. This went to IMAX, who used DMR—an IMAX-proprietary digital process—to 'blow up' the 35mm to the IMAX format. These scenes were then intercut with the IMAX camera negative. So, digital processes were used for the two format conversions, but each set of release prints was created by cutting the negative and timing the shots in a traditional manner."

For me there are two questions. One, which most people are focusing on, is why is there EE in the blu-ray? The other, is why are the Dark Knight 35mm sequences soft? If they had been sharper to begin with, there would've been less EE used, so perhaps the softness/transfer issue goes hand in hand with the EE issue. But know one knows exactly where in the process the EE came from. Personally, I'm not bothered as much by EE as a lot of folks on this list are, as long as the EE is minimal and avoids visible halos.
sheldonison is offline  
post #254 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheldonison View Post

For me there are two questions. One, which most people are focusing on, is why is there EE in the blu-ray? The other, is why are the Dark Knight 35mm sequences soft?

35mm sequenses were shoot with anamorphic lenses and vertical feed 35mm.

IMAX sequenses were shoot with spherical lenses and horisontal feed 70mm.


Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #255 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:11 PM
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 sheldonison View Post

The 35mm scenes are the traditional anamorphic 35 film, which doesn't even need a DI, as opposed to Super-35 which always requires a DI.

Huh?! Since when did Super 35 necessitate a DI?

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #256 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:14 PM
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 MovieSwede View Post

35mm sequenses were shoot with anamorphic lenses and vertical feed 35mm.

IMAX sequenses were shoot with spherical lenses and horisontal feed 70mm.

I think he meant "Why are the Dark Knight 35mm sequences soft... compared to 35mm footage from other films/transfers?"

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #257 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

I think he meant "Why are the Dark Knight 35mm sequences soft... compared to 35mm footage from other films/transfers?"

And that is because it was shoot with anamorphic lenses, compared to many other releases that uses Spherical lenses.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #258 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:19 PM
Member
 
Ironhorse75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmishFury View Post

yes... all the IMAX scenes were cropped to 1.78:1 IMAX aspect ratio is like 1.43:1

Yeah but don't they have a choice as to where to frame it? Why not less building, and more of his body as shown on the prologue?
Ironhorse75 is offline  
post #259 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

I think he meant "Why are the Dark Knight 35mm sequences soft... compared to 35mm footage from other films/transfers?"

I don't think they're soft. The parade trailer shot proves there was absolutely no need for any EE. Maybe the transfer guys were lazy and just downscaled the IMAX "digital remastering" prints
42041 is offline  
post #260 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I don't think they're soft. The parade trailer shot proves there was absolutely no need for any EE.

Well that depends on if the trailer has been sharpend in any way.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #261 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 01:58 PM
Senior Member
 
history2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheldonison View Post

Dark Knight didn't use the standard DI process. The 35mm scenes are the traditional anamorphic 35 film, which doesn't even need a DI, as opposed to Super-35 which always requires a DI. Furthermore, the master source for the blue-ray was the IMAX print. Perhaps a direct DI from the 35mm source would've worked better than the 35mm to IMAX to blu-ray process.

http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15888.shtml
"You also have to go in the other direction for the IMAX release. For these, the cut 35mm negative was color-timed at the lab [instead of a DI], producing an interpositive of the 35mm portions of the film. This went to IMAX, who used DMRan IMAX-proprietary digital processto 'blow up' the 35mm to the IMAX format. These scenes were then intercut with the IMAX camera negative. So, digital processes were used for the two format conversions, but each set of release prints was created by cutting the negative and timing the shots in a traditional manner."

For me there are two questions. One, which most people are focusing on, is why is there EE in the blu-ray? The other, is why are the Dark Knight 35mm sequences soft? If they had been sharper to begin with, there would've been less EE used, so perhaps the softness/transfer issue goes hand in hand with the EE issue. But know one knows exactly where in the process the EE came from. Personally, I'm not bothered as much by EE as a lot of folks on this list are, as long as the EE is minimal and avoids visible halos.

Just to clarify, Super 35mm does NOT require a DI. Nor does Anamorphic 35mm mean you do not "need" to DI either.
history2b is offline  
post #262 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
metalsaber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

With HD DVD Universal was one of worse culprits. Joe Kane had a meeting with them demonstrating side by side their authoring on one of their typical computer monitors and on a big projection screen.
It opened their eyes as to how bad some it looked, they had no clue.
Universal in my opinion has come a long way and ships some of the better transfers at least on new titles.

Spreading the word does yield results at times!!

Sounds like we need more Joe Kane types meeting with these studios. In all seriousness, this release is going to sell big regardless of the transfer. However if these video professionals can at least show the studios the errors they are making, it might change.

I have to admit that when I watched the Intro on the BB disc, I was absolutely floored with the PQ. Now seeing these screen caps, I'm a little shocked. Sadly since I "want" this movie, I'm still buying it.

I mean all someone has to do is show them the TDK intro on BB and compare it to this release and say, "WTH just happened to this movie?"
metalsaber is offline  
post #263 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 03:39 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 history2b View Post

Just to clarify, Super 35mm does NOT require a DI.

True. The other older technique is to photographically convert from the widescreen Super-35 to widescreen anamorphic Academy 35 release print. But you do have to do a conversion since theaters that can't project a Super-35 film. I could be wrong, but I thought that these days, the Super-35 conversion is always done with a digital intermediate. But then again, maybe I'm wrong and maybe the older photographic process used to convert from Super-35 to anamorphic 35mm release print is still being used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by history2b View Post

Nor does Anamorphic 35mm mean you do not "need" to DI either.

True. A DI process works perfectly well for converting the anamorphic 35mm negative to the anamorphic 35mm release print. Contact printing to go from the 35mm negative to the release print works perfectly well too. I think Dark Knight did some sort of combination of contact printing, scanning, upconversion to IMAX, and then using the IMAX master to generate the blu-ray. Anyhow, the theory is that the process didn't work as well as a DI from the A35mm source, and the result was soft, and maybe that's why they used more EE than usual on the blu-ray.
sheldonison is offline  
post #264 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rover2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

With HD DVD Universal was one of worse culprits. Joe Kane had a meeting with them demonstrating side by side their authoring on one of their typical computer monitors and on a big projection screen.
It opened their eyes as to how bad some it looked, they had no clue.
Universal in my opinion has come a long way and ships some of the better transfers at least on new titles.

Spreading the word does yield results at times!!

Yet out of the gate they nuked "The Thing"
rover2002 is offline  
post #265 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 05:48 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 rover2002 View Post

Yet out of the gate they nuked "The Thing"

Yes your right but that came from HD DVD generation. The new stuff is lookin pretty good.
I no longer roll the dice on a blind buy when it comes to older titles regardless the studio. I prefer to let others go first.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #266 of 1594 Old 12-01-2008, 07:48 PM
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 movieswede View Post

could that explain why they started to dnr old titles?

lol!!!

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

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 #267 of 1594 Old 12-02-2008, 02:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WiFi-Spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by vriess View Post

jesus did we really need 5 pages of people arguing over whether the flaws were enough to keep people from buying? I hate having to sort through this crap to get to the real comments.

The color looks a little dingy on the bd compared to the prologue, wonder which is right. Wouldn't put it past warner to flub this up to set up the dd, with a movie this new that has made so much money, this should have been perfection.

+1

Tyler Pruitt - Pro Calibrator - BionicAV
Technical Support - SpectraCal

THX Certified - Video Calibration

WiFi-Spy is offline  
post #268 of 1594 Old 12-02-2008, 03:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WiFi-Spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
From the American Cinematographer story on TDK:

After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way, DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith. That process resulted in a 35mm anamorphic negative, which was combined with effects shots and used to generate 35mm release prints.

To bring scenes shot in 35mm to Imax screens, where images are projected in 1.43:1, DKP 70mm scanned the 35mm interpositive at 4K, and an Imax team in Toronto applied digital DMR (Digital Remastering) processing to degrain and sharpen the images. The process stayed at 4K until the images were filmed out onto 65mm back at Keighley's facility and combined with the Imax material for print. The final Imax print combined the 4K DMR filmout, 5.6K and 8K Imax filmouts, and 18K contact prints from the Imax negative, says Keighley.

People suggested Chris and Wally should have covered themselves by shooting key sequences in both 35mm and Imax, but the 2.40:1 extraction from the Imax frame looks beautiful, he continues. In fact, due to the oversampling, it's probably the best 35mm anamorphic image we've ever seen. If we'd had time to scan the original negative at 6K, we could have produced even higher quality. The information is on the negative 35mm film captures the equivalent of 6K and a color bit depth of 14 bits plus.

As they did with the Imax prints of Batman Begins, Keighley and his team screened each of the 80 Imax prints of Dark Knight in real time to ensure quality. We're a small group of hands-on people who really care about images, he says. We pay attention to all the details all the way to the screen.

Tyler Pruitt - Pro Calibrator - BionicAV
Technical Support - SpectraCal

THX Certified - Video Calibration

WiFi-Spy is offline  
post #269 of 1594 Old 12-02-2008, 04:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Oliver Klohs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Everything is just speculation before we get confirmation from an insider.

And yet you claimed to know what the master was like, that's why I asked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And trailers are not the best to compare with (at least apples) because they usually have sharpening of their own.

The IMAX trailer is good enough for me, it looks much better than what is on the Blu-Ray without sharp edge halos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

But why dont you see it as a possiblity that they sharpend the IMAX scenes aswell since they used a DI for them?

I suggested in my prior post that exactly that was done.
I do not claim to know what stages (DI, intermediate, duplicate negative, IMAX Blow-Up, master, transfer) have introduced the EE and I think it is not really productive to spend time on doing so. What we can see is that it is definitely is there on both IMAX and 35mm scenes. That is why I explicitly mentioned that ALL of the movie has been sharpened INCLUDING the IMAX-scenes. I suggested as a possible explanation for the different amount of ringing that the whole movie including the IMAX parts was sharpened AFTER there had been a first stage of sharpening for only the 35mm parts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

One of the problem for them was that they couldnt scan the orginal IMAX negative in enough high resolution, so they could very well have applied sharpening to them aswell..

All of the movie was scanned in at least 4k resolution which is plenty to yield a supremely detailed Blu-Ray so there was no problem with scanning with a high enough resolution for the purpose of creating a Blu-Ray. And even there was only a 2k master there never is the need for the kind of sharpening we see with TDK, it just looks awful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And even more, Warner isnt known to apply sharpening filters on their encodes.

Even the smilebox version of HTWWW looks sharpened so I would be careful with that statement.

In the end I think that most will agree that there are telltale signs of sharpening in both IMAX and 35mm parts on the Blu-Ray and the 35mm parts got it much worse than the IMAX parts, plus there is most certainly some kind of DNR/grain reduction technology applied, too. Getting rid of this for future releases should be our goal so please please please do not do this again Warner - it is NOT appreciated and makes you fall behind in quality after all the other big studios and their new releases.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
post #270 of 1594 Old 12-02-2008, 05:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Jason One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover2002 View Post

Yet out of the gate they nuked "The Thing"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Yes your right but that came from HD DVD generation. The new stuff is lookin pretty good.

That is not correct. The Thing HD DVD looked perfect. It wasn't until the BD version that Universal ruined it with DNR.
Jason One 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