Gravity 2D/3D - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 07:50 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urlacher5454 View Post

This counterpoint to the debate was posted on another forum:
Looks like some of you want what blu-ray can't provide, and according to every review thus far what we got was pretty darn great.

That was my post. The variables in this comparison with the trailer are major. How is it fair to compare an 8 bit blu ray at a MUCH lower rate vs a trailer with 140+mbps and 10 bit color? That looks like a complete apples to oranges comparison and is not fair at all. I am all ears if someone can explain how this comparison is fair at all considering how large the variables are.
Morpheo likes this.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 08:02 AM
Newbie
 
gaphavet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urlacher5454 View Post


Criterion does 3D releases?

http://www.criterion.com/films/28404-pina

gaphavet is offline  
post #93 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion250 View Post

Did you not see the screenshots on post #20?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510560/gravity-2d-3d-feb-25#post_24340972

The BD is absolute garbage.

I have the blurry and this transfer excedes what I saw at the movies. What more can you ask for. I saw it 5 times at some of the best theaters in S. California. Detail, black level, motion, contrast, all are far better that what I remember at the theatre. How does this translate to garbage? You haven't even seen it. What you are saying is a joke. I really have to question all these people that rely on screen grabs to judge a transfer. I never seen a screen grab look anywhere close to what I actually see during watching the real thing. On a few occations screen grabs can be helpful but that rarely is the case.



Please stop posting false information you have no clue on.
ivanpino is offline  
post #94 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 09:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion250 View Post

Did you not see the screenshots on post #20?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510560/gravity-2d-3d-feb-25#post_24340972

The BD is absolute garbage.

I have the blurry and this transfer excedes what I saw at the movies. What more can you ask for. I saw it 5 times at some of the best theaters in S. California. Detail, black level, motion, contrast, all are far better that what I remember at the theatre. .
Theaters have the better digital source than any BD can be. That's a fact. Better contrast and black level is due to your projector, not the BD being superior to what the theater had or being a really good BD in general. Better detail at home means the projection at the theater sucked (for whatever reason out of several possible). Does not make the BD automatically a top one. With the given specs for it it won't be garbage, but neither on the quality level one would expect for a movie of that caliber. Beats me why WB can't put the supplements on a second disc, fill the discs and give us a no compromise version of this film. Their technical decisions are puzzling, to say the least. I think I'll skip this release and wait for the 4K BD. Till then I can rent the film.
mhafner is online now  
post #95 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 12:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
vantagesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

That was my post. The variables in this comparison with the trailer are major. How is it fair to compare an 8 bit blu ray at a MUCH lower rate vs a trailer with 140+mbps and 10 bit color? That looks like a complete apples to oranges comparison and is not fair at all. I am all ears if someone can explain how this comparison is fair at all considering how large the variables are.

I don't know what all the variables are, but this question has already been answered in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by battlefront1990 View Post

But it uses a different compression algorithm. I was thinking the same thing that you were. I know that trailer uses 10 bit color and bluray is only 8bit color so the colors won't be as good so I won't hold that against them. But I tried encoding that trailer using the placebo settings in x264 at 21 Mbps and also 35 Mbps and both were significantly better than the blu ray. I couldn't really tell the difference between the 35 Mbps and the actual trailer. I could only tell the difference by doing frame comparisons. So it's still a valid comparison since they could have easily put a 35 Mbps encode on the blu ray disc.
vantagesc is offline  
post #96 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked: 415
One reason I can see they released Gravity with a 5.1 mix rather than 7.1 is so when they release a 4k version with the (maybe) DTS-UHD object surround codec based off the Dolby Atmos mix it will sound so much more AMAZING!!! Some studios start pulling this less than stellar transfer stuff (lower bitrate, smaller disc size, dropping features left and right) right before a major new format, so the new format seems that much better.

One thing about Gravity, though I didn't think the story or acting was all that great, was the Atmos mix. It was off the hook compared to normal channel-based 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. They pulled main off-screen dialog (what little there was) into specific surround speakers which gave a lot more realism to the positioning of people and objects within a specific scene environment, besides all the swirling 3D sound effects of radio transmissions and other things. It was really well done, for the most part. I can only hope that consumer object based surround recaptures that same 3D feeling.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #97 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 01:18 PM
Member
 
staindrocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

Detail, black level, motion, contrast, all are far better that what I remember at the theatre. I really have to question all these people that rely on screen grabs to judge a transfer.

Oh, i see... so the best way to judge how the BD transfer compares to the theatrical release is to remember back weeks before when you saw it in the theater and compare that to what you see weeks later in the BD release. If that's your method, then no wonder you don't see what all the fuss is over, being as how your comparison is nothing more than a wild guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

I never seen a screen grab look anywhere close to what I actually see during watching the real thing. On a few occations screen grabs can be helpful but that rarely is the case.

You do realize that what you're watching is a series of still images/pictures that create an illusion of moving images/pictures... that's why they're called "motion pictures". If the level of detail isn't very good in this collection of images, then the level of detail in the movie itself will suffer from the same absence of detail... watching the "real thing" won't magically produce great detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

Please stop posting false information you have no clue on.

That's awfully presumptuous of you to assume, especially considering everything you posted above is nothing more than a comparison based on a wild guess from memory. Hopefully mhafner's follow up post helped you understand how flawed your comparison methodology was.
elario likes this.
staindrocks is offline  
post #98 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by staindrocks View Post

Oh, i see... so the best way to judge how the BD transfer compares to the theatrical release is to remember back weeks before when you saw it in the theater and compare that to what you see weeks later in the BD release. If that's your method, then no wonder you don't see what all the fuss is over, being as how your comparison is nothing more than a wild guess.
You do realize that what you're watching is a series of still images/pictures that create an illusion of moving images/pictures... that's why they're called "motion pictures". If the level of detail isn't very good in this collection of images, then the level of detail in the movie itself will suffer from the same absence of detail... watching the "real thing" won't magically produce great detail.
That's awfully presumptuous of you to assume, especially considering everything you posted above is nothing more than a comparison based on a wild guess from memory. Hopefully mhafner's follow up post helped you understand how flawed your comparison methodology was.

NO THE BEST WAY IS TO JUDGE IT WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT.
ivanpino is offline  
post #99 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 02:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Theaters have the better digital source than any BD can be. That's a fact. Better contrast and black level is due to your projector, not the BD being superior to what the theater had or being a really good BD in general. Better detail at home means the projection at the theater sucked (for whatever reason out of several possible). Does not make the BD automatically a top one. With the given specs for it it won't be garbage, but neither on the quality level one would expect for a movie of that caliber. Beats me why WB can't put the supplements on a second disc, fill the discs and give us a no compromise version of this film. Their technical decisions are puzzling, to say the least. I think I'll skip this release and wait for the 4K BD. Till then I can rent the film.

No the projection at the theaters I saw it didn't suck as you think. So you're going to wait for a 4k version of a film that was shot in 2k? Good luck with that one.
ivanpino is offline  
post #100 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

No the projection at the theaters I saw it didn't suck as you think. So you're going to wait for a 4k version of a film that was shot in 2k? Good luck with that one.

The benefit would be a wider color gamut, probably at least 10 bit depth, and better motion cadence (24p vs. 23.97p). The other could be an object oriented surround mix as long as you have a new surround decoder, etc. However, Warner may still keep the bitrate low since they don't seem to think it matters, even though 4k and its other side benefits should be viewed on a large screen where compression issues could be more noticeable. rolleyes.gif

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #101 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Hmm what exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about a future 4K home format? Why would it be 24p and what advantage does that give over 23.976?

One of the recommendations for UHD is to use whole frames like the cinema has used forever rather than the old school video frame formats based on outdated NTSC broadcasting technology. A film or video shot at 24 fps doesn't have to be converted to 23.97, a video shot at 30 fps doesn't need to be converted to 29.97, etc. This keeps everything as shot and in perfect sync and no need for a source slow-down to sync time code. The would also be no need to use 2:3 pulldown to go from 24 to 30 when broadcasting... just send it in its native rate.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #102 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 05:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

I understand its an extra step to slow it down when going from a studio format to a home format but once that's done does it really make a difference? There are plenty of other conversions that need to be done so I don't think this would be a big deal.

ATSC already supports both 23.976 and 24hz at every broadcast resolution. It just isn't used.

I have never heard of this before so you peaked my curiosity. This might be too off topic so we can continue the discussion elsewhere if needed.

ITU Rec. 2020 specs. for UHD. I believe it's being ironed out right now. Current decades old HD format specs. is Rec. 709.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #103 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 06:43 PM
Member
 
Dion250's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urlacher5454 View Post

This counterpoint to the debate was posted on another forum:
Looks like some of you want what blu-ray can't provide, and according to every review thus far what we got was pretty darn great.

Here is the trailer converted to 8bit and BD specs with x264. As you can see the difference is still huge.

0EnkJHY.jpg Iym7ZN4.jpg

tnF0mRR.jpg I5urnhr.jpg

90VN0gy.jpg Lr5UMhY.jpg

WA6iTaY.jpg dQ6PG0i.jpg

ckKfOPh.jpg oehZ7bw.jpg

2qvlVKG.jpg cc4sGMs.jpg

WR92R0g.jpg B9eAx2Q.jpg

When you butcher a master.. Like Warner Clearly has. The result is well.. there BD. This BD is a disaster.
Dion250 is offline  
post #104 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 07:52 PM
Member
 
staindrocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

NO THE BEST WAY IS TO JUDGE IT WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT.

I have seen it, so who are you talking to? Why do you assume that everybody who's commented about the obvious loss of detail, clearly seen in each one of the posted screen captures, hasn't seen the movie?
Also, you don't have to use all caps when posting... i can read lowercase just fine. wink.gif


@Dion250
Thanks for providing those screens showing the 2k trailer encoded down to BD specs with x264. Hopefully that will put some peoples concerns to rest about it not being a fair comparison. The proof is right there to see with their own eyes... which some will undoubtedly dismiss and/or ignore, which is fine... but at least it's posted for people who do think BD's should look as good as the spec allows.
staindrocks is offline  
post #105 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 07:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Those scenes look really yellow compared to what i just watched... You sure they aren't some sort online rip?

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #106 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 08:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion250 View Post

Here is the trailer converted to 8bit and BD specs with x264. As you can see the difference is still huge.

0EnkJHY.jpg Iym7ZN4.jpg

tnF0mRR.jpg I5urnhr.jpg

90VN0gy.jpg Lr5UMhY.jpg

WA6iTaY.jpg dQ6PG0i.jpg

ckKfOPh.jpg oehZ7bw.jpg

2qvlVKG.jpg cc4sGMs.jpg

WR92R0g.jpg B9eAx2Q.jpg

When you butcher a master.. Like Warner Clearly has. The result is well.. there BD. This BD is a disaster.

A disaster to who? You? Ok that's fine. But in no way is this transfer anywhere near a disaster.
ivanpino is offline  
post #107 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by staindrocks View Post

I have seen it, so who are you talking to? Why do you assume that everybody who's commented about the obvious loss of detail, clearly seen in each one of the posted screen captures, hasn't seen the movie?
Also, you don't have to use all caps when posting... i can read lowercase just fine. wink.gif


@Dion250
Thanks for providing those screens showing the 2k trailer encoded down to BD specs with x264. Hopefully that will put some peoples concerns to rest about it not being a fair comparison. The proof is right there to see with their own eyes... which some will undoubtedly dismiss and/or ignore, which is fine... but at least it's posted for people who do think BD's should look as good as the spec allows.

Sorry but it's not obvious.
ivanpino is offline  
post #108 of 263 Old 02-15-2014, 09:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rahzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 147
I have to agree with staindrocks and Dion. Whether you think the BD is a disaster or not, I think Dion's screens show that it could have been MUCH better.
AaronMK likes this.
rahzel is online now  
post #109 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 02:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Theaters have the better digital source than any BD can be. That's a fact. Better contrast and black level is due to your projector, not the BD being superior to what the theater had or being a really good BD in general. Better detail at home means the projection at the theater sucked (for whatever reason out of several possible). Does not make the BD automatically a top one. With the given specs for it it won't be garbage, but neither on the quality level one would expect for a movie of that caliber. Beats me why WB can't put the supplements on a second disc, fill the discs and give us a no compromise version of this film. Their technical decisions are puzzling, to say the least. I think I'll skip this release and wait for the 4K BD. Till then I can rent the film.

No the projection at the theaters I saw it didn't suck as you think. So you're going to wait for a 4k version of a film that was shot in 2k? Good luck with that one.

Either the cinema actually showed more detail than the BD at home or projection there sucked. Inevitable conclusion from the fact they have a source with upto twice the spatial detail of a BD. Whether you remember that detail correctly and can actually reliably compare it to what you see at home is another issue.
Concerning 4K BD versus 1080p BD, yes the 4K BD can show significantly more detail than the current offering from WB since it can accommodate full 2K resolution (minus compression losses) unlike today's BDs. Nobody said it would have 4K resolution. Coming from a 2K DI this is indeed impossible.
mhafner is online now  
post #110 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 02:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Hmm what exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about a future 4K home format? Why would it be 24p and what advantage does that give over 23.976?

One of the recommendations for UHD is to use whole frames like the cinema has used forever rather than the old school video frame formats based on outdated NTSC broadcasting technology. A film or video shot at 24 fps doesn't have to be converted to 23.97, a video shot at 30 fps doesn't need to be converted to 29.97, etc. This keeps everything as shot and in perfect sync and no need for a source slow-down to sync time code. The would also be no need to use 2:3 pulldown to go from 24 to 30 when broadcasting... just send it in its native rate.
24 fps to 23.97 should have no effect on image quality at all. The images are simply played a bit slower. Sound is affected though since it needs to be resampled and pitch corrected. Not ideal.
mhafner is online now  
post #111 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 06:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MSchu18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 142
I do see a large difference in those screen caps, but there could be a few things accounting for it.

Klipsch Image Ones
Klipsch x11i
Rega P5/Groovetracer/Denon DL-103R
Parks Audio Budgie Phono Pre/SUT
Pioneer SC35
Bel Canto REF 500M
Klipsch Cornwall/Crites/Aletheia Audio
Klisch RC64II
Klipsch SW-115
OPPO BDP-93
Samsung PN64D8000
MSchu18 is offline  
post #112 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 09:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

I have to agree with staindrocks and Dion. Whether you think the BD is a disaster or not, I think Dion's screens show that it could have been MUCH better.

I agree myself, but that's not my point. There are so many factors to take into account here. Most trailers are usually made way before the film is even complete. So why are we trying to compare them to actual transfer that was probably approved by Cauron himself. As I stated before and I will again. I saw it multiple times and I clearly remember many shots that were soft. If anything comes from that trailer its that its not being faithful to the actual source.

Its foolish to think that a trailer is to be used as reference for a final transfer. Just foolish.

What's easier to believe

A. The trailer is what this transfer should be like (probably made much much earlier than when the movie was finished.)

or B. A transfer made from a final master that was surely supervised by the director himself.


Could it have looked better? Maybe? Does this mean the transfer is a disaster as its being out to be here? Absolutely not. Note even close.

I could use the 5.1 as an example. Could the sound have been better in 7.1? Probably. Is the sound mix a disaster? No

Please stop the nonsense and using words as disaster to describe this transfer. That's what bothers me. Misinformation....
ivanpino is offline  
post #113 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 09:43 AM
Newbie
 
gaphavet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

Most trailers are usually made way before the film is even complete. So why are we trying to compare them to actual transfer that was probably approved by Cauron himself. As I stated before and I will again. I saw it multiple times and I clearly remember many shots that were soft. If anything comes from that trailer its that its not being faithful to the actual source.

Its foolish to think that a trailer is to be used as reference for a final transfer. Just foolish.

 

The trailer was made beforehand and it shows signs of not being entirely finished; colors look different, there's some shading here and there that's not found on the Blu-ray. However, as reference material goes, it's pretty good. It shows you very clearly the grain structure and details being a lot more vibrant than that of the Blu-ray. It can safely be assumed that whatever source was being used to make the trailer looks a lot better than what we're getting on home media. It's not foolish at all and I advise you to compare the screenshots once more. It's naive to think the Blu-ray is supposed to look the way it does; it's only a result of poor encoding decisions and a will to crank down the bitrate enough to fit more extras. WB uses the same encodes for their worldwide distribution, as such the Blu-ray for the other markets are gonna need more audio dubs and subtitles to fit the consumers overseas.

 

As for the transfer being overseen by the director I highly doubt it. I don't remember that being mentioned anywhere. If it was director approved then WB would make every effort to boast about that fact. The director might have had some input on the act of downmixing the audio, but that doesn't mean he was involved in the process of transferring the video.

gaphavet is offline  
post #114 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 09:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaphavet View Post

The trailer was made beforehand and it shows signs of not being entirely finished; colors look different, there's some shading here and there that's not found on the Blu-ray. However, as reference material goes, it's pretty good. It shows you very clearly the grain structure and details being a lot more vibrant than that of the Blu-ray. It can safely be assumed that whatever source was being used to make the trailer looks a lot better than what we're getting on home media. It's not foolish at all and I advise you to compare the screenshots once more. It's naive to think the Blu-ray is supposed to look the way it does; it's only a result of poor encoding decisions and a will to crank down the bitrate enough to fit more extras. WB uses the same encodes for their worldwide distribution, as such the Blu-ray for the other markets are gonna need more audio dubs and subtitles to fit the consumers overseas.

As for the transfer being overseen by the director I highly doubt it. I don't remember that being mentioned anywhere. If it was director approved then WB would make every effort to boast about that fact. The director might have had some input on the act of downmixing the audio, but that doesn't mean he was involved in the process of transferring the video.

Why would they need to save space? The disc only takes up 19 gigs for the movie.
ivanpino is offline  
post #115 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 10:20 AM
Newbie
 
gaphavet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Because the extras and the rest of the Blu-ray take up 21GB. Add in the aforementioned regional supplements and the fact that most BD's come with a couple of GB's of headroom (Don't know why though)

 

What I would propose to Warner, and I believe others have touched on it as well, is this: leave the movie on its own disc. Put all extras on a secondary disc. You keep bundling BD's with DVD's and that's fine but it's 2014 and if you want the DVD because you lack the hardware for BD then buy the DVD standalone.

 

According to WB's track record though, that's never gonna happen and we're stuck with a BD with subpar image quality (compared to what we can safely assume it can look like)

gaphavet is offline  
post #116 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked: 415
It's also very possible that Warner, seeing the huge global response to this movie (though, for the life of me I don't know why), is going to put out a super-deluxe version towards the holiday season. Perhaps that's why they dropped a lot of features and squeezed the film's bitrate like an orange.

They've done stuff like this with The Lord of the Rings, another big hit for Warner.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #117 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
 
reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaphavet View Post

It's naive to think the Blu-ray is supposed to look the way it does;

Isn't it also naïve to think a blu-ray is supposed to look identical to a 2K DCP?
reanimator is offline  
post #118 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 01:37 PM
Newbie
 
gaphavet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by reanimator View Post


Isn't it also naïve to think a blu-ray is supposed to look identical to a 2K DCP?

No, we've already established the fact that the details and grain of the trailer can be kept relatively intact when encoded with x264 at the same bitrates as that on the Blu-ray.

gaphavet is offline  
post #119 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
raoul_duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I thought this was shot predominantly on Alexa cameras?

Therefore 'grain of the trailer' means nothing, when there wouldn't be any grain in the first place.

Comparing one possibly unfinished, digitally photographed/timed, etc, set of images, to the actual home video, would be futile, regardless of Warner did or didn't do for the BD release.

Show me proof, that the theatrical release looked identical to the trailer and then we'll talk.
raoul_duke is offline  
post #120 of 263 Old 02-16-2014, 03:55 PM
Newbie
 
gaphavet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

90% of the movie wasn't shot but created digitally. Only the actor's faces and movements inside space stations etc were shot on Alexa's, the rest is the effort of Framestore and the collective rendering from a medium sized datacenter. There aren't any alternative cuts of the movie, the storyline and what you see was pre-programmed, pre-vis'd and animated over several years. Every speck of grain that you saw in the cinema's were intentionally made. It's possible the trailer is from an unfinished batch of renders, I doubt it though. Grain-wise, I believe the trailer is what you would see in the cinema, or at least close to that of the master, and assuming (with a high degree of certainty) that this is the case, then WB has no excuse for pushing out this mess of a release considering the PQ of the source material they have at hand.

 

Call me a nitpicker if you want, but watching the first part of the trailer it looks a lot more immersive, there's more structure in the motions of the grain. It looks more real!

gaphavet 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