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 3

post #61 of 140
Quote:


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

I fervently wish that was always the case, but this post from Robert Harris about the new Patton release tells me otherwise:

Quote:


By High Frequency Information (HFI) I'm referring to a part of the image which would contain minute detail information...

Information which reproduces not only on Blu, but on SD.

Stubble on an actor's face, along with facial details such as tiny scars or marks seen in close-ups -- look at the worst of it and skin becomes "plastic" as in The Untouchables. Patton has this problem. Flesh has imperfections, even if heavily made up;

Detail in hair;

Detail on the walls of buildings, which when DNR'd looks smooth; Look at an exterior wall, be it stucco or brick and you'll see heavy detail. Look at the buildings in Patton and there is nothing.

Grass, and not just a mass of green, but the ability via BD to differentiate;

Trees, and not just trees, but the leaves moving, rather than being mass of green;

In Patton...

Dirt on a Mercedes staff car, a Jeep or a motorcycle; not just an overlay of beige dirty color -- DIRT!

Blu-Ray allows this.

Leather that isn't simply shiny black, but shows imperfections, grain and wear;

And lastly, background information that isn't simply a mass of color.

The point here is that the Blu-Ray process has the capacity and the ability to reproduce fine detail magnificently.

Remove grain incorrectly, or use the wrong process, and you lose every bit of detail that has been captured within those bits of grain, and things become, well...

pretty and clean...

and not only totally non-representative of film.

But no longer representative of the work that some might attempt to replicate.

This isn't simply about grain, which DONE PROPERLY as I've explained, can be totally removed without losing a single bit of detail, or lowered to replicate any film stock ever produced. Had Warner wanted their high def of Bullitt to look like it had been shot on early '90s 5247 rather than late '60s 5254, they could have done it. They chose not to, and the proper -- original -- look of Bullitt is there in high definition.
post #62 of 140
The film expert says that Patton looks excellent despite the judicious application of DNR.
post #63 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I fervently wish that was always the case, but this post from Robert Harris about the new Patton release tells me otherwise:

Yeah, that is disappointing. Looking on the bright side, at least they didn't do a complete hack job a la many of Paramount's catalog releases.
post #64 of 140
Quote:


Patton looks excellent despite the judicious application of DNR.

Doesn't sound so judicious according to Mr. Harris.
post #65 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Doesn't sound so judicious according to Mr. Harris.

Fine then. Skip it or join my crib wagon for free.
post #66 of 140
Which are the BD pics and what are they being compared with? I just see "Blu-ray" between them.

Thanks,

M
post #67 of 140
It's a small improvement in that last shot. There is more detail and less artifacts in the blu-ray version, of course. And I do recall seeing small specks on the DVD, particularly during the final battle sequence.

I'll be getting the blu-ray version from Netflix next week. In the meantime, it would be awesome if you could post comparisons of an interior/night time shot, a shot of the Galapagos, and a shot with lots of movement, Xylon. Thanks again for all your hard work!
post #68 of 140
Saw MaC last nite for the first time on BD.

Was surprised by how much film grain was shown.
This is a newer film and shouldn't show alot of grain.
Noticed most of the grainer scenes were when we had close-ups of RC.

At any rate, too much grain (unless PW intended it).
post #69 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I fervently wish that was always the case, but this post from Robert Harris about the new Patton release tells me otherwise:

interesting. Highdefdigest gave it a rave and said there is very impressive amounts of detail...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1341/patton.html

'Patton' features a gorgeous 1080p/AVC-encoded transfer that offers a dramatic improvement over the film's other home video incarnations. The palette is vibrant and naturalistic, black levels are engrossing, and detail is incredibly revealing. It's easy to see the stitching on the general's medals, the smallest creases in his coat, and every wrinkle in his aging face...
post #70 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I fervently wish that was always the case, but this post from Robert Harris about the new Patton release tells me otherwise:

Why are people discussing Patton in the M&C thread? It's getting out of control.
post #71 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

interesting. Highdefdigest gave it a rave and said there is very impressive amounts of detail...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1341/patton.html

'Patton' features a gorgeous 1080p/AVC-encoded transfer that offers a dramatic improvement over the film's other home video incarnations. The palette is vibrant and naturalistic, black levels are engrossing, and detail is incredibly revealing. It's easy to see the stitching on the general's medals, the smallest creases in his coat, and every wrinkle in his aging face...

Can you please delete this and repost in the Patton thread? Thanks.
post #72 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Saw MaC last nite for the first time on BD.

Was surprised by how much film grain was shown.
This is a newer film and shouldn't show alot of grain.
Noticed most of the grainer scenes were when we had close-ups of RC.

At any rate, too much grain (unless PW intended it).

The grain is as it's supposed to be. And it has NOTHING to do with being a newer film.
post #73 of 140
someone didnt get their midol delivery.
post #74 of 140
A future re-release of M&C was obviously planned from the get-go, that's why they left out all the extras. If they made the PQ too good, then the re-release wouldn't be as worth double dipping on. They plan all this....
post #75 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by westgate View Post

someone didnt get their midol delivery.

Have you ever said anything that actually contributes to the actual discussion? OK, didn't think so.

BTW, I think you used the midol line before. Any chance you could be more original next time? Look in your medicine cabinet.
post #76 of 140
Well, I'm going to 'take my chances' and pick it up today. The only copy that I previously owned was an orphaned fullscreen SD disc, so I'm quite ready to upgrade.

To the two sides: Everyone is simply speculating, so it might be best to refrain from sounding so factual in our opinions. Let's just work on enjoying the film and if we get some legitimate information about the director's intent, even better
post #77 of 140
Finally got my copy today and watched it tonight, I really have no complaints myself, loved the pq and audio.
post #78 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by townofturley View Post

The grain is as it's supposed to be. And it has NOTHING to do with being a newer film.

OK, you win....now, tell us how you know "the grain is as it's supposed to be."
Has Peter Weir discussed this with you?
No? I didn't think so....
post #79 of 140
Thread Starter 
post #80 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1 View Post

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.

How do you know it's not source related? Fox seems to give us exactly what they have in the source the vast majority of the time. That's exactly what I want as a HDM fan.
post #81 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I fervently wish that was always the case, but this post from Robert Harris about the new Patton release tells me otherwise:

That is disappointing. I was excited about this release.
post #82 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Saw MaC last nite for the first time on BD.

Was surprised by how much film grain was shown.
This is a newer film and shouldn't show alot of grain.
Noticed most of the grainer scenes were when we had close-ups of RC.

At any rate, too much grain (unless PW intended it).

throws pig crap into the lake and hears
EEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #83 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by westgate View Post

someone didnt get their midol delivery.

amen

NARCs suck
post #84 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

OK, you win....now, tell us how you know "the grain is as it's supposed to be."
Has Peter Weir discussed this with you?
No? I didn't think so....

just study the science of film a little and you'll understand
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...JiUm8dW5k2kLIw
post #85 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

OK, you win....now, tell us how you know "the grain is as it's supposed to be."
Has Peter Weir discussed this with you?
No? I didn't think so....

Don't really need to discuss this with him. You see, I do understand a bit about movies and photography. I also understand that to be a good HD transfer, a movie does NOT have to have the absurd "wow" factor and doesn't have to have candy cane colors. Many do not understand this. Do you? No. I didn't think so!
post #86 of 140
getting a bit nasty in here....
post #87 of 140
I just finished watching the movie and while it isn't super sharp, I'm pleased to have it and for me it looks good. As I mentioned before, I didn't have a suitable copy of the movie at all, so anything was an improvement. Also, it sounded wonderful.

I can certainly understand where some peoples' irritation comes from. Before I watched this movie, I had popped in 'Hot Fuzz' and in my opinion, HDM doesn't get any more pleasant to look at than that. It's easy to compare the two and say "WTF?"... Anywho, it is what it is and we don't have anything better, so let's just enjoy it.
post #88 of 140
I felt that the BD was a marked improvement on my 52" screen. None of the nasty macroblocking...and some enhanced depth to the picture.
post #89 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by townofturley View Post

Don't really need to discuss this with him. You see, I do understand a bit about movies and photography. I also understand that to be a good HD transfer, a movie does NOT have to have the absurd "wow" factor and doesn't have to have candy cane colors. Many do not understand this. Do you? No. I didn't think so!

Thank you for avoiding answering my question by using rhetoric as a defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsb View Post

just study the science of film a little and you'll understand
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...JiUm8dW5k2kLIw

Thank you for assuming I haven't studied the science of film and just don't "understand."
post #90 of 140
you're welcome
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*