or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Master and Commander comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Master and Commander comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post

Xylon,

the quality of the best sequences defines the level of quality of any given transfer.

M&C on Blu-Ray contains several tightly focused, optimal lit scenes which provide very decent definition and detail.

I am not going to start discussing directors intend, nor am I going to get into detail HOW this particular movie was shot in the first place (natural lightning and such).

I agree that this transfer isn't going to wow the typical HD crowd. I agree that in average it looks "underwhelming".

But the main attribute is inconsistency - which by itself shows that the "transfer" is a decent one (providing good quality where the source allows it).

A transfer is - by definition - of constant quality. It either represents the source or not (and not to some variable degree depending on the sequence at hand ).

That being said I am sure this movie can look better than this given a new, state of the art transfer. Fox recycling their D-Theater transfers for their INITIAL Blu-Ray releases is a business decision - expect lots of double dips from them in the future

Ditto

Couple of weeks ago I searched around the web for "reviews" of this disc and they rank it "poor" to "reference quality"(sic) and whatever "star" it scored. Also not one mentioned anything about the EU version if its using the same transfer. If its indicated they are the same I could've used my EU disc for the comparison thread instead. Good thing I got a good deal in the end so I'm able to buy the US disc and verify for sure the information I need to know about this release, 1. PQ compared to DVD, 2. With numerous delays, any difference on the PQ over EU disc? Answered in this thread


This title will be a double dip in the future. Count on it.
post #32 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbird View Post

Wow, that is disappointing. The blu-ray is better, but not by much. I'll give this one a rental.

For some good enough for a purchase if its cheaper.
post #33 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post

But the main attribute is inconsistency - which by itself shows that the "transfer" is a decent one (providing good quality where the source allows it).
A transfer is - by definition - of constant quality. It either represents the source or not (and not to some variable degree depending on the sequence at hand ).

Yes. What people often underestimate or ignore is the fact that the original source (as in original photography) is often of inconsistent quality itself and no matter what you do, will never look 'dazzling' (whatever that means) from start to finish. Film is not an instant feedback process (digital cinematography is far more so). There are badly exposed shots, there are badly focused shots, poor lenses can be used, the camera can malfunction etc. Once you find out it may be too late to reshoot. Or there is no budget for fixes. Less of a problem in Hollywood, but films are shot everywhere, not just in the West, and with large budgets.
The other problem is that the intended look by the film makers and the expected/appreciated look by part of the audience/customers may be more or less incompatible.
post #34 of 140
Folks can keep watching the SD DVD if they like but the BD is better obviously for AQ and while PQ is uneven on the BD, it is still better also. My SD DVD will probably never be watched again.

Not sorry I bought this one in the least!
post #35 of 140
BR disc = best version currently avail from start to fin, period. Worth the price? Prolly not, but who cares, damn near none of 'em are unless you're one of those junkie's and buy a bazillion titles @ BOGO prices, etc. IF and when a better version surfaces someday, I'll buy it and sell this copy or pass it along to a friend, but until then, I'm quite happy knowing I own a copy of the best version out there of one of my all time fav's, oh the horror, lol...NO WAY I was gonna stick with the inferior DVD of this one.
post #36 of 140
Tough crowd. I think the PQ is good, better than the DVD, and is limited by the source material. Now the AQ is awesome! However, the price is a tough sell, if you are a big fan, get it. If not a huge fan or first time viewer, rent or BOGO.
post #37 of 140
And if not satisfied with the quality of the BD after purchasing and watching it, sell it as one would do with others that don't meet their criteria. Otherwise, rent it and see what you think about it given mixed opinions.
post #38 of 140
This is very disappointing for a movie I've been waiting on for a while. I have no plans to support Fox or any other studio with sub par efforts as this.
post #39 of 140
The discussion has been ongoing for quite some time and I'd say many are not sorry they purchased this. Different strokes, expectations, etc. etc.

I'm unsure what more could have been done with this material. I'd still like to know how it rates versus the D theater.
post #40 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertc88 View Post

I'm unsure what more could have been done with this material.

Exactly. I suppose Fox could apply lots of edge enhancement and make some people happier with the image. Kris Deering put it best when he said the following in his review (which can be read here): "This is just one of those difficult films to present and live up to the razor sharp look so many HD transfers provide. People need to start thinking about how they want a film presented; as intended by the film's creators or cleaned up to look like nature documentaries. I prefer the director's vision, which this presentation fits to a tee."

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertc88 View Post

I'd still like to know how it rates versus the D theater.

A poster uploaded some comparative grabs in the comparison thread within the HD software section. The D-Theater version has lots of compression artifacts that are not found in the Blu-ray release.
post #41 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertc88 View Post

The discussion has been ongoing for quite some time and I'd say many are not sorry they purchased this. Different strokes, expectations, etc. etc.

I'm unsure what more could have been done with this material. I'd still like to know how it rates versus the D theater.

I'm more of a visual guy than an audio guy. Like you said, diff strokes/expectations. If it hits a BOGO at some point, I might pick it up but no way I'm paying anything close to street price on it. I just hope there isn't a re release later down the road that looks even better.....
post #42 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSmith83 View Post

I prefer the director's vision, which this presentation fits to a tee.

I have heard this argument for video releases ad nauseum.

Can someone link me to PW's review of this BD?
post #43 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

What about The Godfather restoration? They reportedly used different elements/filtering for different scenes.

Restoration and transfer are two different things. I doubt that M&C needs any restoration yet.
post #44 of 140
Just saw this over the weekend and thought it looked great - knowing what M&C looked like theatrically.

There is grain. Particularly during the opening act where there is lots of fog (real/digital/optical, who knows), it is murky, as I was expecting. And it holds together in the most challenging scenes, I think. Even during this one shot where a thick layer of fog dissolves to the bow of the HMS Surprise. It's a shot that's awash with grain. And that's how I like it, as opposed to scrubbing this thing with DNR to the point of plasticity...

But I did not see any compression uglies. In fact, that's one of the things these screencaps reveal - how much ringing and noise there is around fine detail on the DVD.

Is it a night and day difference? No. Does it looked great on a big screen? I think so (I have a 92in FP setup). YMMV, and I can certainly understand those with smaller screens not seeing a big difference. To me, if I don't want to spin the DVD again, that's a significant difference. I will be watching the Blu-ray from now on.

And I'm one of those people that didn't like the Dracula Blu-ray - but that's another thread.

I am absolutely pleased - with the exception of the MIA supplements. There Fox deserves to be raked over the coals - especially since they are releasing all the Patton supplements on a DVD in the upcoming 2-disc Blu-ray/DVD set. THAT'S the way it should be done, at the very least.
post #45 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rr6966 View Post

Tough crowd. I think the PQ is good, better than the DVD, and is limited by the source material. Now the AQ is awesome! However, the price is a tough sell, if you are a big fan, get it. If not a huge fan or first time viewer, rent or BOGO.

What he said ^^^^^^^^^^
post #46 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1 View Post

I just hope there isn't a re release later down the road that looks even better.....


post #47 of 140
Counting on a re-release means watching the SD DVD for who knows how much longer if one isn't going to purchase this BD. Not this guy, not with this movie! I already waited long enough to get it looking at least that much better IMHO than the SD DVD and I'm happy with my purchase. Additionally, I have reference AQ BD!

Buy it at a good price for now and sell it in the future if a re-release does ever happen and it is that much better. You may only get peanuts for it but at least you'll get enough to buy some popcorn!
post #48 of 140
I thought the PQ was Ok not blown away. The sound track is rocking and I felt it was stronger than the original but it has been awhile so no direct comparison.
post #49 of 140
Yet another Fox title I won't be buying. Were it reasonably priced, I might have considered picking it up as a companion piece to the fantastic Special Edition DVD. But there's no way I'm coughing up Fox's ludicrous premium for yet another sub-standard product.

Funny, Fox's mouth-watering catalogue and exclusivity to Blu-ray was the deciding factor for me when faced with picking one of the two hi-definition formats at the beginning of '07. Almost 15-16 months on from purchasing my Blu-ray player, I still don't own a single Fox Blu-ray title. Other than the format war itself, for me, they have been the single biggest disappointment since the advent of the Blu-ray format.
post #50 of 140
your loss
Fox has loads of awesome releases thus far
I'm happy they don't DNR + EE their releases to make ignorant people happy.
post #51 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsb View Post

your loss
Fox has loads of awesome releases thus far
I'm happy they don't DNR + EE their releases to make ignorant people happy.

+1
post #52 of 140
I guess I need to have sub par effort quantified. The BD has a reference audio track IMHO (how many do?) and beats the SD DVD for PQ.

If it is extras, the delivery date being pushed back, and cost, I can relate to that.
post #53 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

+1

+2.

I just don't understand what the criteria folks are looking for from BD, especially catalog titles. Mine specifically is that it betters the PQ and AQ of the SD DVD and I like the movie enough, I pull the trigger. Fox delivers and I have many!

Forget the cost as I bought many recently for $19.99 which is reasonable. Extras? Jimmy cracked corn!
post #54 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

Just saw this over the weekend and thought it looked great - knowing what M&C looked like theatrically.

There is grain. Particularly during the opening act where there is lots of fog (real/digital/optical, who knows), it is murky, as I was expecting. And it holds together in the most challenging scenes, I think. Even during this one shot where a thick layer of fog dissolves to the bow of the HMS Surprise. It's a shot that's awash with grain. And that's how I like it, as opposed to scrubbing this thing with DNR to the point of plasticity...

But I did not see any compression uglies. In fact, that's one of the things these screencaps reveal - how much ringing and noise there is around fine detail on the DVD.

Is it a night and day difference? No. Does it looked great on a big screen? I think so (I have a 92in FP setup). YMMV, and I can certainly understand those with smaller screens not seeing a big difference. To me, if I don't want to spin the DVD again, that's a significant difference. I will be watching the Blu-ray from now on.

And I'm one of those people that didn't like the Dracula Blu-ray - but that's another thread.

I am absolutely pleased

Good review and one I completely agree with.

I believe this BD is a good one to separate those who understand movies and high definition and those who don't and have unrealistic measures of PQ. The fact that there are many who are disappointed because this BD doesn't have a "wow" factor easily proves my point.
post #55 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertc88 View Post

+2.

I just don't understand what the criteria folks are looking for from BD, especially catalog titles. Mine specifically is that it betters the PQ and AQ of the SD DVD and I like the movie enough, I pull the trigger. Fox delivers and I have many!

Forget the cost as I bought many recently for $19.99 which is reasonable. Extras? Jimmy cracked corn!

Glad you asked, here are my criteria:

1. Marked improvement over SD, test would be to play the SD and BD for someone and they could instantly tell a difference.
2. Lossless audio, always - This was promised the most from Blu-Ray and for the most part, they have delivered.
3. Every single extra from past SD special editions. No excuse here, for charging $35 retail, Fox should feel free to include 2 or 3 discs of content.
4. Catalog price ($24 tops for a single disc). Anyone paying $29 or more for a stripped down BD catalog title is just adding to the problem.
5. All versions of films included - if there is a DC available, you better include it via branching (I'm looking at you Pearl Harbor and Die Bored 4)

And preferred but not mandatory

6. Remastered or updated extras specifically for BD. I don't want to see any 480i stuff but I can understand it.

If you are a studio and don't want to apply the above criteria, don't bother releasing it. In my view, I think only Warner Bros is the only one that consistently hits most of those (they are still struggling with the lossless audio part but are getting better).
post #56 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

+1

+2 to what David Hir agreed to.
post #57 of 140
Thread Starter 
post #58 of 140
Thread Starter 
I noticed that the transfer has some dirt and specks (white specks - look at the left background of the captain) scattered throughout. Not noticeable when in motion but sticks out when scanning it using a Dell 24" lcd.
post #59 of 140
It's an "old" transfer. Not horrible but not good either. The DVHS version is just as soft.
post #60 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

It's an "old" transfer. Not horrible but not good either. The DVHS version is just as soft.

+ artifacts (blocking).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Master and Commander comparison *PIX*