Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link) - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-24-2012, 07:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIG ED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California Wine Country
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

That's a maximum distance table, not ideal distance. Funny how often max distance is recommended online - I think because so many people sit too far away, or don't know distance changes with resolution.
Yep!
I was just reinforcing KMFDMvsEnya's quotED post; which doesn't seem too be a popular thing too do around here... tongue.gif

Luv the : "86.27"!!!
"Oh no!! I'm 86.5" away!!" eek.gif

"I wonder if any of the releases had slipcovers though."
"Are these comfirmed to have slipcovers?"
"They look nice in those slips."
"This slipcover looks too good to pass up."
BIG ED is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-25-2012, 02:25 AM
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 42Plasmaman View Post

My wife & I watched those 2 scenes 3 times lastnight and observed no odd grain anomalies or ghosting trails.
This was viewing on a 117" screen at 10', 8' & 3' projected by an Epson 5010 projector.
Well, consider yourself lucky I guess! Obviously I don't know all the details of your HT setup, but the grain certainly looks odd on mine.

Out of curiousity I also saw the Cinemark presentation in one of their XD screens the other day, it looked almost exactly like the blu-ray in terms of color, detail, and texture (including the digital weirdness); if that was a 4K DCP there's not much there that 1080p ain't giving you. Or maybe the projector wasn't quite in focus again. And I hate to admit it, but much of the film doesn't really hold up for me these days :|
42041 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Malcolm_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CLASSIFIED
Posts: 2,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!

Blu Ray... 3-D TV... 4K... I Like New STUFF!!!

Malcolm_B is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Jeffer65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm_B View Post

Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!

I plan to do this tonight. Just picked up the last copy at Target today. Granted Jaws is not my favorite movie of all time, but I like it enough to own it. Never had it on video, but I trust the reviews. There is something about good old Bruce the shark. Didn't Universal retire him a few years ago from the studio tour? Is there a Bruce at the Universal theme parks?

Jeffer65
Jeffer65 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 12:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
The jaws tour is still at one at least, L A I think
dvdmike007 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 01:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
Strevlac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm_B View Post

Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!

Audio Video Science Forum
Strevlac is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

That's a maximum distance table, not ideal distance. Funny how often max distance is recommended online - I think because so many people sit too far away, or don't know distance changes with resolution.

It's HDTV makers that push the huge 'ideal' viewing distances. One Samsung guy insisted that if I sat at the 'proper' 14' distance from my 52" set that I wouldn't notice any problems (never mind that random pixels wildly flashing kinda shows up from just about any distance so that one of the many issues would still show anyway, but whatever) as they repeatedly tried to not honor the warranty (took 2-3 YEARS of fighting and an independent expert to evaluate it to finally get it honored).
skibum5000 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Jeffer65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffer65 View Post

I plan to do this tonight. Just picked up the last copy at Target today. Granted Jaws is not my favorite movie of all time, but I like it enough to own it. Never had it on video, but I trust the reviews. There is something about good old Bruce the shark. Didn't Universal retire him a few years ago from the studio tour? Is there a Bruce at the Universal theme parks?

Wow! Watched the movie and now watching the Making of... To me this looks like a period film that was shot in the last ten years. Wonderful restoration. If you like this film at all, then this is a must own disk.

Jeffer65
Jeffer65 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:59 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm_B View Post

Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!

Seems to be a by-product rather than the important thing at these forums. Obviously if a transfer is really bad, sure, it's annoying. But when one has to sit up close and scour the image for problems something, for me at least, is wrong somewhere.
haineshisway is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:21 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 Malcolm_B View Post

Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!
I don't believe that there's this thing called "the dang movie" that is distinct from the look and sound of the film. It is all part of the movie, it all contributes to its cinematic effect.
42041 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffer65 View Post

Wow! Watched the movie and now watching the Making of... To me this looks like a period film that was shot in the last ten years. Wonderful restoration. If you like this film at all, then this is a must own disk.
QFT Looks pretty damn good to me.

As for the "AVS" comments, I'm here because I enjoy the science behind movies and their creation, which seems to fit the bill. I think that's what we're here for, not necessarily to nitpick every frame of every release for problems. Yeah, I like to know about the problems ahead of time, but only the ones I'm going to notice. And I didn't notice any in Jaws. It's a little soft in places, but I'll give it some credit for pushing forty.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIG ED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California Wine Country
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm_B View Post

Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!
You shouldn't be: "Forever Upgrading", you should just sit back & enjoy the flick. biggrin.gif

"I wonder if any of the releases had slipcovers though."
"Are these comfirmed to have slipcovers?"
"They look nice in those slips."
"This slipcover looks too good to pass up."
BIG ED is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIG ED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California Wine Country
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffer65 View Post

Wow! Watched the movie and now watching the Making of... To me this looks like a period film that was shot in the last ten years. Wonderful restoration. If you like this film at all, then this is a must own disk.
How can a movie from the nineteen seventies period lOOk like a 21st century film?
(not joking)
EDitEDbyED:
Or, are you saying it lOOks like a 2002 movie of a 1975 'event'?

"I wonder if any of the releases had slipcovers though."
"Are these comfirmed to have slipcovers?"
"They look nice in those slips."
"This slipcover looks too good to pass up."
BIG ED is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 09:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thirdkind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm_B View Post

Jeez, just sit back and enjoy the dang movie!
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Seems to be a by-product rather than the important thing at these forums. Obviously if a transfer is really bad, sure, it's annoying. But when one has to sit up close and scour the image for problems something, for me at least, is wrong somewhere.

There's a separate forum for discussing "the dang movie". This forum is for technical analysis. If you're annoyed by nitpicking, you're in the wrong place.
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.
thirdkind is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Knowing I had this coming from BlockBuster I've been keeping an eye on the thread. Fun, wondering what I'd think about it (I'm picky, but not crazy.)

Random thoughts - Speilberg says, more than once, in a feature that it looks better than any 35mm projected ever did. So, there's that.

"Grain" is very consistent throughout, except where it's not smile.gif Some scenes are a bit too scrubbed, but all others it's consistent. I didn't notice the grain crawl or whatever around moving objects.

Contrast is excellent, thankfully. A little over saturated for my tastes, but par for the course for me.

It manages to be surprisingly clear and sharp, but without that subliminal sense of digititus, over sharpening that plagues so many "artificially perfect" encodes.

The sound freaked me out. I know absolutely nothing about the original sound and what's been altered. All I know is this is the first time for me where I preferred the original sound. The 7.1 was seriously getting on my nerves - reminded me of the American Graffiti version they released with new sound, can't remember what they called it, but the sound was completely detached from the reality of the scene (this was a theatrical release.) I got the same impression from the 7.1 here - the mono was much more realistic to me - like production sound. I kept wanting to like the 7.1 - the scene that got me off it permanently was where they were at the docks, everyone was piling into boats to go after the bounty, and Dreyfus and Scheider were yelling at the guys in a boat to not overload it.

The mono sounded like what it looked like - an outdoor scene with the motor sound drowning out the dialog. The 7.1 sounded like a decent first effort by the rookie sound guy, motor sound carefully placed, at just the right level, all perfect and nice. Except it's not a perfect and nice scene, it's anarchic and chaotic and should sound like it. The mono does to me.

I'm only half way through (had to walk the dog) so I'll be curious about the sound effects later that people are talking about, but really, I'm stunned that I'm enjoying the old mono mix (as true mono - center and sub.)

Viewing on pro cal'd 64" plasma from 80".

Eve: I thought I was through getting involved with men who were trouble. Falling in love on a look. I can't look at you.

Mickey: You have perfection about you. Your eyes have music. Your heart's the best part of your body. And when you move, every man, woman and child is forced to watch.
fjames is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:42 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind View Post

There's a separate forum for discussing "the dang movie". This forum is for technical analysis. If you're annoyed by nitpicking, you're in the wrong place.

Well, technical analysis? Really? Okay.
haineshisway is offline  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:45 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

Knowing I had this coming from BlockBuster I've been keeping an eye on the thread. Fun, wondering what I'd think about it (I'm picky, but not crazy.)
Random thoughts - Speilberg says, more than once, in a feature that it looks better than any 35mm projected ever did. So, there's that.
"Grain" is very consistent throughout, except where it's not smile.gif Some scenes are a bit too scrubbed, but all others it's consistent. I didn't notice the grain crawl or whatever around moving objects.
Contrast is excellent, thankfully. A little over saturated for my tastes, but par for the course for me.
It manages to be surprisingly clear and sharp, but without that subliminal sense of digititus, over sharpening that plagues so many "artificially perfect" encodes.
The sound freaked me out. I know absolutely nothing about the original sound and what's been altered. All I know is this is the first time for me where I preferred the original sound. The 7.1 was seriously getting on my nerves - reminded me of the American Graffiti version they released with new sound, can't remember what they called it, but the sound was completely detached from the reality of the scene (this was a theatrical release.) I got the same impression from the 7.1 here - the mono was much more realistic to me - like production sound. I kept wanting to like the 7.1 - the scene that got me off it permanently was where they were at the docks, everyone was piling into boats to go after the bounty, and Dreyfus and Scheider were yelling at the guys in a boat to not overload it.
The mono sounded like what it looked like - an outdoor scene with the motor sound drowning out the dialog. The 7.1 sounded like a decent first effort by the rookie sound guy, motor sound carefully placed, at just the right level, all perfect and nice. Except it's not a perfect and nice scene, it's anarchic and chaotic and should sound like it. The mono does to me.
I'm only half way through (had to walk the dog) so I'll be curious about the sound effects later that people are talking about, but really, I'm stunned that I'm enjoying the old mono mix (as true mono - center and sub.)
Viewing on pro cal'd 64" plasma from 80".

Why are you stunned that you're enjoying the ORIGINAL mix of the film? It was brilliant and won an Oscar - shouldn't really be surprising to enjoy it, since it's what originally accompanied the film. My sampling of the 7.1 track lasted only three scenes and I had to shut it off - Jaws it ain't.
haineshisway is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 07:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Jeffer65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

How can a movie from the nineteen seventies period lOOk like a 21st century film?
(not joking)
EDitEDbyED:
Or, are you saying it lOOks like a 2002 movie of a 1975 'event'?

Yes that is what I meant. Isn't that the definition of a period film?

Jeffer65
Jeffer65 is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Strevlac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

QFT Looks pretty damn good to me.
As for the "AVS" comments, I'm here because I enjoy the science behind movies and their creation, which seems to fit the bill. I think that's what we're here for, not necessarily to nitpick every frame of every release for problems. Yeah, I like to know about the problems ahead of time, but only the ones I'm going to notice. And I didn't notice any in Jaws. It's a little soft in places, but I'll give it some credit for pushing forty.

Being "a little soft in places" is not the problem. You, like a lot of others, seem to be confused regarding transfer issues and original photography issues. They are seperate and distinct. Original photography issues are what they are and should be considered "correct" for better or worse.
Strevlac is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Being "a little soft in places" is not the problem. You, like a lot of others, seem to be confused regarding transfer issues and original photography issues. They are seperate and distinct. Original photography issues are what they are and should be considered "correct" for better or worse.
Wow, really? I never would have guessed that. Maybe I should have made a comment about how the film is almost forty years old, maybe then it would have meant that I understood that already.

My point is that I didn't see any technical flaws in the transfer. From my perspective (i.e. watching the movie on the couch), it looked perfect. I don't consider it a flaw if I have to pause the film and stand six inches away from the TV with a magnifying glass to see it. This is not a case where somebody LOTR'd the color or Pattonized the DNR setting. Obvious and noticeable flaws, glitches, or mistakes are a problem. Compression artifacts only visible under extreme scrutiny are not.

I did notice a distinct lack of screenshots from people who are complaining of issues.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Malcolm_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CLASSIFIED
Posts: 2,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
"Technical analysis"? LOL. Sounds more like simple bitching around here. I'm out of this thread, leaving it to the audio video scientists. rolleyes.gif

Blu Ray... 3-D TV... 4K... I Like New STUFF!!!

Malcolm_B is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffer65 View Post

I plan to do this tonight. Just picked up the last copy at Target today. Granted Jaws is not my favorite movie of all time, but I like it enough to own it. Never had it on video, but I trust the reviews. There is something about good old Bruce the shark. Didn't Universal retire him a few years ago from the studio tour? Is there a Bruce at the Universal theme parks?
I think Jaws is still at the California tour, but it's been years since I checked up on it. (Edit: the Universal, CA site still shows it)

However, as far as I know, the sharks at Universal were never the real Bruce. They were recreations, just like the "Leave it to Beaver" house in Burbank is actually from the later "New Leave it to Beaver" series, not the original, despite what the tour guides tell you. The real house, if it hasn't been junked, is in storage in an area of the lot just Northeast of Jaws lake where they keep a lot of stuff they don't want to throw away. It's not on the tour, though. It was removed when they rebuilt Colonial Street from it's dogleg right turn format to the curvey form that was used up through "The Burbs". Some time prior to "Desperate Housewives" being shot there, it was extended where the "mansion" used to be and the cul de sac was removed.
NetworkTV is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 11:18 AM
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 Jedi2016 View Post

Wow, really? I never would have guessed that. Maybe I should have made a comment about how the film is almost forty years old, maybe then it would have meant that I understood that already.
My point is that I didn't see any technical flaws in the transfer. From my perspective (i.e. watching the movie on the couch), it looked perfect. I don't consider it a flaw if I have to pause the film and stand six inches away from the TV with a magnifying glass to see it. This is not a case where somebody LOTR'd the color or Pattonized the DNR setting. Obvious and noticeable flaws, glitches, or mistakes are a problem. Compression artifacts only visible under extreme scrutiny are not.
I did notice a distinct lack of screenshots from people who are complaining of issues.
Funny, many would say the same thing about LOTR.
I can post screenshots if you'd like, they won't help though; I'm talking about motion artifacts.
42041 is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 12:31 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Funny, many would say the same thing about LOTR.
I can post screenshots if you'd like, they won't help though; I'm talking about motion artifacts.

To be clear, you're talking about things YOU see - someone else in this very thread on the previous page watched the exact scenes you were referencing on a huge screen and didn't see the problems. And that's a problem, you see. Something is off somewhere.
haineshisway is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 12:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm_B View Post

"Technical analysis"? LOL. Sounds more like simple bitching around here. I'm out of this thread, leaving it to the audio video scientists. rolleyes.gif


dvdmike007 is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 01:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Why are you stunned that you're enjoying the ORIGINAL mix of the film?

Blind faith in modern technology? Unfortunately, humans are in control of the tech, so gigo is still the word of the day.

I don't understand mono sound enough to know if a surround can be "extracted" like it can from stereo - i.e. looking at phase. Maybe it's impossible? The sound on this though just felt like bad decisions. As if it was a college project, and when it was done, the professor says, that's very nice, but did any of you actually view the movie?

Eve: I thought I was through getting involved with men who were trouble. Falling in love on a look. I can't look at you.

Mickey: You have perfection about you. Your eyes have music. Your heart's the best part of your body. And when you move, every man, woman and child is forced to watch.
fjames is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 02:50 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

42041, so I went out of the way to play the scene in question (Brody lifting up the glass and drinking wine) today. I've used two different TVs, a Sony HX 800 series and a Panasonic ST plasma (ranging 55"-65"). I use PS3, the very best Blu-Ray player in the world, with the absolute highest processing power available out of any player.
I've watched the scene in question a couple of dozen times. I saw absolutely nothing of what you describe. There were no artifacts. There were no weird Lowry like frozen grain. The grain did not leave any swirly trails around Brody's hand, nor any trails were left around the glass.
All I see is well rendered, fine, film like grain.
I did this test with 24P on and off on the PS3. I would suggest to try turning 24P off on your PS3 and let us know what happens.
I have no problem critiquing ANY poor release, no matter how much I like the movie. Read some of my comments on The Terminator Blu-Ray and the yet again botched new remaster which will be hitting Europe in October of this year. The Terminator is my all time favorite movie, but I will boycott unless we get a good presentation and will fight it until the end.
Your description of Jaws is 100% false. My tests were extensive and I understand video extremely well.
If you are seeing the artifacts that you describe, then either you have a defective disc, or your set-up is not up to proper standards and, or is outdated. Having the Kuro TV means very little. The TV's video processor could also be defective.

See, this is the problem here - people post their thoughts as if they're the only ones who can be right. And then others believe them. But we now have two people (three if you count me) who've watched the referenced scenes and see none of what was being talked about here. Are three people wrong, because that's what the original poster would have us believe. We're all wrong and what he's seeing is correct. As I said, something is off somewhere. This is a great transfer and I would never see any need for, as another poster said, standing four inches from the TV, blowing up the image and doing any of that stuff. That's not how you watch a movie and I venture to say if you were in a movie theater and did that with a 35mm print you would also find many things that would cause you to think something was off. So, I agree - the description of the original poster's complaints about those specific scenes is 100% false.
haineshisway is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 02:50 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 NagysAudio View Post

Your description of Jaws is 100% false. My tests were extensive and I understand video extremely well.
If you are seeing the artifacts that you describe, then either you have a defective disc, or your set-up is not up to proper standards and, or is outdated. Having the Kuro TV means very little. The TV's video processor could also be defective.
lol... the "something's wrong with your setup" stuff can go precisely both ways, and I won't get into it. It looks the same on all my playback setups, on all my software decoders, and on the cinemark DCP. My other discs don't have anything like that, except the ones with similar filtering, like Star Wars. I find it much easier to believe that someone who thinks Jurassic Park is a reference film transfer (with no sharpening to speak of) simply wouldn't see it, rather than all my equipment and the digital cinema projector all having the same odd problem, which some other people, who see the same issue, have as well.

But just to make what I'm talking about extremely obvious, I've saved a small crop of the bluray image as an animated PNG, slowed it down, and boosted the contrast around the grain to an extreme degree so its motion is very easy to see. Obviously this has nothing to do with how the film actually looks in that shot (which is a pretty innocuous example) ... purely for "scientific" purposes. Unfortunately the huge size of animated files necessitates heavy cropping and very short lengths.
For reference, the shot is around the 59:30 mark (the camera is moving in the screenshot, so its blurry): http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/237/cap1z.jpg
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1639/output1e.png As the camera pans up, the grain somehow follows the image. Very clever, those randomly distributed dye clouds.
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7825/output2.png As the fella starts moving, he drags some of the grain along with him.

Anyway, I've spent a good 45 minutes of my weekend figuring out how to do animated captures, and that's 45 minutes too long to waste on this nonsense. If you don't see it on your disc, good, enjoy it.
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.
42041 is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 03:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
People like jurassic park and star wars?
dvdmike007 is offline  
Old 08-26-2012, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

If you don't see it on your disc, good, enjoy it.
I'm guessing the reason you had to boost contrast is because otherwise we wouldn't see it. The fact that you had to "zoom and enhance" at all would indicate the problem isn't anywhere near as bad as you're making it out to be. If you had posted unedited shots, I imagine most of us wouldn't have seen it at all.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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