AVS Forum banner

The Ten Commandments - Blu-Ray Screencaps

45K views 332 replies 79 participants last post by  Milt99 
#1 ·
See the bottom spoiler tag, screenshots are now corrected and accurate.


See post lower down:
Quote:
Eric - good catch, I installed a new video card about a week ago and haven't reset my options in CCC. I've redone a large number of screenshots using Haali and have also turned the options off in CCC. This was a stupid mistake on my part everyone - I apologize.

I'm normally very careful to disable all these "negative settings" on my machine to take screencaps - the issue in this case was that I forgot installing the new card would reset them all, I apologize profusely to all affected - this was something that simply slipped by me and I should have thought to check it. My thanks to Eric for noticing.



If you'd like a rar/zip of all the images please PM me and I'll happily provide it.

My apologies to Paramount over the misleading screen captures, and to all those who cancelled pre-orders. This was a setting that I missed. Lesson learned: don't take video card replacements lightly. Thanks to all for your patience and understanding.


New images, Haali renderer, Video Card options disabled. PNG format.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




































 
See less See more
38
#103 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksmyname /forum/post/20135554


Yep.

And, if you ordered from Amazon, and the movie DOES look lousy, Amazon makes it very easy to return.

Uhh...what? They will only give you a replacement, not a refund. And that's only if it does not work/play (like your Twilight Zone example). Do they really take back movies for a refund if you don't like the quality of it? No retailer store will do that with Movies/Games/CD.
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD /forum/post/20137874


Uhh...what? They will only give you a replacement, not a refund. And that's only if it does not work/play (like your Twilight Zone example). Do they really take back movies for a refund if you don't like the quality of it? No retailer store will do that with Movies/Games/CD.

Surprisingly Amazon gave me a full refund for The Bank Job BD a couple years back simply because I didn't like the movie. I blind bought it, but I didn't like the movie when I finally saw it. I told them I didn't end up liking the movie and I wanted to see if I would be able to exchange it for another film or some store credit at least, something I didn't think they would do because there was nothing wrong with the disc, but they surprised me by accepting my request and giving me a full refund. It was the only time I did it, maybe I just had luck and got in contact with a nice representative.
 
#105 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD /forum/post/20137874


Uhh...what? They will only give you a replacement, not a refund. And that's only if it does not work/play (like your Twilight Zone example). Do they really take back movies for a refund if you don't like the quality of it? No retailer store will do that with Movies/Games/CD.

I buy something I'm interested on release if the price is right. If it is a catlog, it remains unopened till opinions and reviews show a pattern. Yes, I know the disparity of opinions with catalogs all to well but we all have our favorites we trust at least.


Returning it is so simple for me if reviews don't pan out. I could walk to where I bought it but it would cost me a quarter or so for a splash of gas to drive and return it. Easier than buying it and then returning it to Amazon!!
 
#111 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs /forum/post/20136812


The Blu-Ray.com caps are indeed a bit better looking than the ones posted here

They use a completely different method in capturing screenshots.
 
#116 ·
Assuming no major difference in methodology, they probably just chose better scenes. I was pretty haphazard in my selections. The screenshots above were all completely unprocessed - captured using the MPC-HC save image feature. I don't generally dump I frames and sort through them later as it's a lot of work.
 
#117 ·
"Sharpness and overall resolution, as captured from the VVLA elements at 4k (6k, if you consider the negative moving sideways, but still 4k perf to perf) is dead-on perfect. Grain levels appear normal and approximately half that of a normal non-VVLA 5248 production of the era. I'm seeing no apparent use of DNR or sharpening. Production dupes, with matte lines intact, are as imprecise as they were in 1956, with heavy movement between elements, and obvious rear projection. Keep in mind that this was a very studio-bound production, with limited use of location exteriors."


And there you have it. So, all the outrage, all the cancelled orders, all the cries of "DNR, it's obvious, it's been scrubbed clean - I can see it in the caps" all for naught, all wrong, and hence my earlier posts. So, has everyone who, as I said before and was correct about, rushed to judgment reordered this title now? I hope there are lessons learned here, but history has proven otherwise. Thanks to Mr. Harris for setting this storm of pointless nothingness straight.
 
#118 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac /forum/post/20135320


Completely reasonable and I agree. I am one of the folks who jumped the gun in my condemnation. Next time I'll wait for corroboration. It's just unfortunate that the anti-screenshot crowd is going to use this in their quest to sqeltch all criticism.


Oh well. I reordered so as far as I'm concerned no harm no foul.

But your condemnation post about the "anti screenshot crowd" (whatever or whoever they are) was a little offensive, assuming that whoever that crowd is doesn't want something to look like film. Say what? How do you know what they want? Generalizations don't earn you points and certainly you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you. I very much want everything I buy on Blu-Ray to look like film. The problem is, many, many people here have no idea what these things looked like or should look like and basing everything on a few screenshots is, in my opinion, silly. There have been too many instances of that sort of thing and then the disc shows up and looks fantastic and everyone who cancelled reorders and then it's back to the same thing the next time. I don't think there's a cabal of anti screenshot people - I think there are people with level heads who have been down this road too many times.
 
#120 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway /forum/post/20140432


But your condemnation post about the "anti screenshot crowd" (whatever or whoever they are) was a little offensive, assuming that whoever that crowd is doesn't want something to look like film. Say what? How do you know what they want? Generalizations don't earn you points and certainly you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you. I very much want everything I buy on Blu-Ray to look like film. The problem is, many, many people here have no idea what these things looked like or should look like and basing everything on a few screenshots is, in my opinion, silly. There have been too many instances of that sort of thing and then the disc shows up and looks fantastic and everyone who cancelled reorders and then it's back to the same thing the next time. I don't think there's a cabal of anti screenshot people - I think there are people with level heads who have been down this road too many times.

While I understand your intent - there is a definite group of people who discredit all screencaps as worthless. I fall in the camp of those who think that a film that looks "film-like" in motion, will have the same appearance in still shots. This isn't a question of validity, just preference. I respect those who want to watch the film and then make up their minds instead, but I also enjoy seeing screencaps for my own edification. Are screen captures susceptible to terrible damage by video card features? Absolutely, as I proved so thoroughly to everyone earlier. None the less, i think that properly taken screencaps serve a purpose and are useful to far more people than not. I think you took Strevlac out of context yourself, there's no right or wrong way here, just preferences and we all have a different set of measurements by which we evaluate the presentation of a Blu-Ray.
 
#121 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway /forum/post/20140432


But your condemnation post about the "anti screenshot crowd" (whatever or whoever they are) was a little offensive, assuming that whoever that crowd is doesn't want something to look like film. Say what? How do you know what they want? Generalizations don't earn you points and certainly you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you. I very much want everything I buy on Blu-Ray to look like film. The problem is, many, many people here have no idea what these things looked like or should look like and basing everything on a few screenshots is, in my opinion, silly. There have been too many instances of that sort of thing and then the disc shows up and looks fantastic

once again, what are these numerous instances where objectively wrong conclusions were made by a large contingent of people (that were uncontroversial among people using screencaps as a reference)? i really can't think of any.

that's the nice thing about screenshots, really. you can draw your own conclusions, though they may be stupid and/or ill-informed. you're also free to draw no conclusions at all. i get nothing out of some guy on some forum who watched the movie telling me how it looks.
 
#122 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 /forum/post/20140467


once again, what are these numerous instances where objectively wrong conclusions were made by a large contingent of people (that were uncontroversial among people using screencaps as a reference)? i really can't think of any.

that's the nice thing about screenshots, really. you can draw your own conclusions, though they may be stupid and/or ill-informed. you're also free to draw no conclusions at all. i get nothing out of some guy on some forum who watched the movie telling me how it looks.

This is typical Internet shadow-dancing, and I'm not going to go Googling to find you the instances but they are most assuredly there - one I remember specifically was Contact, which many cried out about after viewing screencaps until the thing actually came out and didn't look anything like the caps and, in fact, looked swell.


Yes to your other points - people can make stupid and/or ill-informed conclusions and people can draw no conclusions at all. As to a "guy" on a forum telling anyone how a film looks, it really depends on the guy, doesn't it? Robert Harris is a "guy" I tend to agree with much but not all of the time. If someone is posting on a board who has been around film and knows film and has seen classic releases on film, then I'll read him. Most on these forums are filled with newly-formed armchair experts, many of whom have never seen these things on film. Them I don't listen to.


In the end, it's all horse racing and everyone is going to see what they want to see. And those who have seen and know what a film should look like want exactly that.
 
#123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 /forum/post/20140335


Lord of the rings........

Warner did the same thing with other sites and it wasn't just LOTR, but any Warner/New Line title. Sites who receive thousands of dollars in screeners had little choice.


Fortunately they have dropped that policy (more than likely due to the bad puiblicity & feedback) and the upcoming Extended Editions will have screen shots chosen by the reviewers.


Needless to say it wasn't some conspiracy to try and make the studios look good by Blu-ray.com, HiDefDigest, etc.
 
#124 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX /forum/post/20140790


Warner did the same thing with other sites and it wasn't just LOTR, but any Warner/New Line title. Sites who receive thousands of dollars in screeners had little choice.


Fortunately they have dropped that policy (more than likely due to the bad puiblicity & feedback) and the upcoming Extended Editions will have screen shots chosen by the reviewers.


Needless to say it wasn't some conspiracy to try and make the studios look good by Blu-ray.com, HiDefDigest, etc.

I am well aware that other sites did it but it makes my statement no less true now does it, I would rather have a late review then a BS one
 
#125 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway /forum/post/20140670


one I remember specifically was Contact, which many cried out about after viewing screencaps until the thing actually came out and didn't look anything like the caps and, in fact, looked swell.

Here's the AVS thread about Contact (DVDbeaver's review claims egregious DNR by the way), I think you're exaggerating the unanimity of the consensus quite a lot: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1183331

In just about every controversial release I can remember (Baraka, Gladiator, Predator UHE, LOTR) the accuracy of the screencaps was not the problem. Some people seem to have trouble grasping that 0fps and 24fps are going to be much different visually and say stuff like "Predator looked WAY better than these captures!!!!". No doubt, but that's not the point is it? It's still DNRd to hell...
 
#126 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUpton /forum/post/20140382


Assuming no major difference in methodology, they probably just chose better scenes. I was pretty haphazard in my selections. The screenshots above were all completely unprocessed - captured using the MPC-HC save image feature.

Haphazard is actually good assuming a broad enough shot coverage, especially with older films since there are often certain patterns to individual frames when image processing has been applied. One of the more frequent patterns is what I will call the "lazy filtering" pattern - i.e. where the initial frames of a shot sequence will be the most representative of the source material before filtering has been applied, but the subsequent, more heavily filtered frames in the shot sequence will be more representative of the actual viewing experience since they represent the bulk of frames.


You can sometimes tell two quite different stories with these, but the value judgement of the filtered vs. unfiltered story is not always the same and is dependent on whether the image processing is viewed as constructive or destructive.


For example, here are some examples of "lazy filtering" using consecutive I-frame pairs from The Red Shoes captured through the same chain, since I just went through this and it is fresh in my mind. From these, it appears that perhaps some artificial grain and sharpening has been added throughout that results in what seems to me an unquestionable improvement. The first frames of the shot sequence lack the full filtering, however, and seem inferior.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) I-frame @ 0:14:58.523 (#21543) vs. I-frame @ 0:14:59.607 (#21569)



I-frame @ 0:16:09.010 (#23233) vs. I-frame @ 0:16:10.095 (#23259)



I-frame @ 0:16:14.557 (#23366) vs. I-frame @ 0:16:15.642 (#23392)



I-frame @ 0:16:20.855 (#23517) vs. I-frame @ 0:16:21.940 (#23543)



I-frame @ 0:16:23.942 (#23591) vs. I-frame @ 0:16:25.026 (#23617)


Quote:
I don't generally dump I frames and sort through them later as it's a lot of work.

Actually, this is what I do, and it *is* a lot of work.
 
#127 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 /forum/post/20140813


I am well aware that other sites did it but it makes my statement no less true now does it, I would rather have a late review then a BS one

Your statement was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 /forum/post/20140253


Yes they capture what the studios tell them to

The "studios" did not tell them what to capture. The reviews simply used stills, not captures or screenshots.


AVS' reviews don't have ANY screenshots so does that make them "BS" reviews? I'm sure Mr. Potts would have a thing or two to say about that.


The reviews were accurate, and there were disclaimers about the studio stills, and they were honest about how they felt about the video quality...so I fail to see how they were "BS" reviews. You're just grinding a grudge for the wrong reasons.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top