or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Patton has some model smooth hands there.

And some really bad fake eyebrows.

-Brad
post #32 of 930
I hate grain as much as the next person, but detail is more important and I'd rather have that. What really bothers me is the artificial grain that is in Transformers, Bourne Ultimatum and 300. That drove me nuts.

Either way, it's still a huge improvement over the DVD, DNR and all so it's going to be hard for people to resist buying it.
post #33 of 930
The DNR pisses me off, but I'm even more concerned about the EE. I am baffled as to why the studios would use EE, it NEVER looks good.
post #34 of 930
i was considering picking it up based on all the glowing reviews on PQ but after seeing the shots i can't see myself ever buying this release of the movie i'd rather have the EEed mess of the 2001 release of patton
post #35 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.Cornerstone View Post

I hate grain as much as the next person, but detail is more important and I'd rather have that. What really bothers me is the artificial grain that is in Transformers, Bourne Ultimatum and 300. That drove me nuts.

I'm prety sure the grain in Transformers is in the photography and wasn't added for effect.
post #36 of 930
One thing that helped me understand the problem of DNR before I even knew it existed was when I saw a low budget Canadian film that was shot on HD cameras. Up till then I had always believed that I wanted that NFL style look to my movies as well. Who wouldn't.

But this turned out to be the hardest movie I have ever seen to get into. They used the standard very bright lights that are needed for film but every thing just ended up looking like a lit movie set does when you are standing there. They were inside buildings and it was 50 times brighter than standing out side on a sunny day. The absolute harshness of the digital capture didn't allow for any dream/fantasy effect which I have discovered is important to help you suspend disbelief. Harsh reality does not pull you in it pushes you out. While it would have been a really great look for NASCAR it was just completely wrong for a movie.

When I look at a shot that has been DNR'd to death I get the sensations I had watching that movie. I wish I could remember the name of it as it would be instructional for people to look at.
post #37 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.Cornerstone View Post

I hate grain as much as the next person, but detail is more important and I'd rather have that. What really bothers me is the artificial grain that is in Transformers, Bourne Ultimatum and 300. That drove me nuts.

Either way, it's still a huge improvement over the DVD, DNR and all so it's going to be hard for people to resist buying it.

Bourne and Transformers with fake grain? 300 yes, but Bourne?
post #38 of 930
Just commenting on the comparison screen stills of the Patton/flag scene between SD DVD and Blu-ray, the improvements in PQ on the Blu-ray screen shot is quite impressive.
post #39 of 930
How can the review sites we love and trust tell us that this movie looks so fantastic on BLU?when in reality it looks crap?

I rely on these review sites.If i am told that a disc looks good then i could very well buy this disc because of the review it was given.Untill you guys spotted the horrible problem with PATTON i was all set to order it.

Now im not to sure

I want my movies to look like it was when it was shown in the cinema WARTS AND ALL

If i want to watch my movie with DNR then all i have to do is switch it on.It DOESNT need to be added to the disc itself

FOX you should be ashamed.
post #40 of 930
Most of the review sites are looking at these BD's on screens that are below 50 inches. And then there are guy with larger screen who just don't know any better.

9 out of 10 people will pick the image without grain. The studios are catering to them, just liker they did for decades with panning and scamming.

post #41 of 930
Thread Starter 
post #42 of 930
Thread Starter 
post #43 of 930
See, the smooth hands thing is what gets me. When i envision General Patton in my head, I think of a guy that could go toe to toe with Chuck Norris and John Wayne. I dont think of him just getting done with his Purel.

I unfortunately, due to my age, did not get to see this in theaters. Im 28. I would like to have seen this the way it was presented.
post #44 of 930
the last shots kill me... there's just no detail anywhere... his face looks like something out of a wax museum and even the uniform looks like it was made out of wax
post #45 of 930
Patton: The Madame Tussaud version
post #46 of 930
So you guys would rather watch the low-res DVD?
post #47 of 930
I'll say it again since this doesn't seem to go away. Patton looks fantastic! I don't miss the grain at all. Stick with your lower quality dvd's and i'll enjoy my Blu-Ray.
post #48 of 930
Is there really detail missing? Seems to me they did a pretty good job at keeping all the fine detail. Maybe you just like the extra texture that grain adds to the picture? Like a comic book? Absolutely nothing wrong with that of course.

When I view Patton, it looks pretty natural to me, and not waxy. I think it has more detail than many other HD discs. I'm still on the fence about DNR; it scares me (because I've seen really bad results) and impresses me when it is done well where it seemingly doesn't rob detail and makes an image more 3D.

Now, EE - that's another story. Drives me nuts. Just watched 2001 and saw it all over the place... marring an otherwise amazing transfer.
post #49 of 930
Yikes, that looks hideous. There's no way I'd tolerate that.

Studios: stop messing around with films to satisfy people who don't enjoy watching films.

Quote:


So you guys would rather watch the low-res DVD?

No, but DVD is not the benchmark here.
post #50 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR View Post

So you guys would rather watch the low-res DVD?

Yes. I would.
post #51 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Yes. I would.

Ok enjoy it then!
post #52 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

No, but DVD is not the benchmark here.

Is there some other format out there that I can watch at home that is better than the DVD or Blu-ray?
post #53 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Yes. I would.

On a large screen, the Patton Blu-ray *destroys* the 2001 DVD. I put both up on my 92in screen, and the DVD looked like a bad VHS dub.

Not saying I like the DNR, but I'm only holding onto the OOP 2001 THX DVD for the isolated score.
post #54 of 930
RDarrylR, lasvidfil, & Ian_Currie -- Are you guys saying that the missing detail shown in the flag stars (in post #3 - the Fox War Classics DVD) is an "improvement"? I find that appalling. The BD transfer is missing all of those details (even the Cinema Classics Collection DVD has lost some of those star details), it looks flat. Yes the BD version is "sharper" but it still looks flat (and, yes, "waxey").

I haven't uncorked my Laserdisc version of Patton, so i can't really compare that to my DVD version. However, the "remastered" screw-ups are present everywhere.

I have both the Laserdisc version of the IMAX movie "The Dream Is Alive" (one of the earliest IMAX movies made). I was absolutely horrified by the DVD version - not by the video, but the audio. The LFE on the DVD version was castrated (= almost zero). On the Laserdisc version, my whole house rattled during the first scenes showing the launch of the shuttle. It wasn't as loud and gut shaking as what I felt in a real IMAX theater, but it was there! On the DVD, it sounded like there wasn't any LFE at all, and the low frequencies even seemed to be rolled off, with very little below 40Hz.

Flexx -- On my 106" screen, my DVD version of Patton didn't look that bad (with a top rated DVD player). But I haven't comapred it to my Laserdisc version, as I said.
post #55 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_Wiebe View Post

RDarrylR, lasvidfil, & Ian_Currie -- Are you guys saying that the missing detail shown in the flag stars (in post #3 - the Fox War Classics DVD) is an "improvement"?

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed that the tiny stars-within-the-stars were absent on the BD shot. I agree that that isn't desirable.
post #56 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

On a large screen, the Patton Blu-ray *destroys* the 2001 DVD. I put both up on my 92in screen, and the DVD looked like a bad VHS dub.

Not saying I like the DNR, but I'm only holding onto the OOP 2001 THX DVD for the isolated score.

Honestly I'd rather watch a lower res. version that still looked like a film than some scrubbed, waxy artificial mannequin version. To me, that is WAY more distracting.
post #57 of 930
OK, first off, you can still see the stars within the stars on the Bluray screen shot, at least on my computer monitor.

Secondly, its funny how a little DNR, suddenly becomes Absolute Appalling Waxy Mannequin Garbage.

Maybe its not exactly what you would like, but the final result is truly remarkable in and of itself, despite the fact that it doesn't conform to your standards of what Film should look like.
post #58 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike171979 View Post

OK, first off, you can still see the stars within the stars on the Bluray screen shot, at least on my computer monitor.

Secondly, its funny how a little DNR, suddenly becomes Absolute Appalling Waxy Mannequin Garbage.

Maybe its not exactly what you would like, but the final result is truly remarkable in and of itself, despite the fact that it doesn't conform to your standards of what Film should look like.



To me this doesn't look like "a little DNR"
Malden looks like a synthetic twilight zone representation of himself. here...

If this is "remarkable" I'd hate to see your idea of awful.

...and it's hardly just "my" standards of what film should look like, it's what many people's standards of what film should look like is including many who work in film for a living.

post #59 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Honestly I'd rather watch a lower res. version that still looked like a film than some scrubbed, waxy artificial mannequin version. To me, that is WAY more distracting.

Have you seen the Blu-ray? I understand your principle, but on a large screen, the 2001 DVD does *not* look like film.
post #60 of 930
Agreed. I have it in my netflix queue.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX*