AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Mummy comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Mummy comparison *PIX* - Page 5

post #121 of 231
7/23/08 at 6:57am
Thank you for correcting me everyone.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #122 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:03am
I was going to start a new thread "Am I the only one who thinks The Mummy and Mummy Returns look bad?", after coming across so many reviews referring to the "stunning video".

Then I read this one and was pleased to find others who find the EE and DNR & motion blur to be very distracting. Even Ultraviolet looks better than these releases. The only positive thing is the DTS-MA sound track which is a huge improvement over the SD-DVD versions.
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:13am
I didn't think they looked "bad" really, just kind of rough, especially the first one. Mummy Returns is a lot cleaner but is on the soft side. Scorpion King looks a heck of a lot better obviously.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahummer View Post

I was going to start a new thread "Am I the only one who thinks The Mummy and Mummy Returns look bad?", after coming across so many reviews referring to the "stunning video".

Then I read this one and was pleased to find others who find the EE and DNR & motion blur to be very distracting. Even Ultraviolet looks better than these releases. The only positive thing is the DTS-MA sound track which is a huge improvement over the SD-DVD versions.

I think the comparison with Ultraviolet is going a bit far.

Based on the portions of The Mummy that I have watched so far, the close-ups are the best looking parts.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I didn't think they looked "bad" really, just kind of rough, especially the first one. Mummy Returns is a lot cleaner but is on the soft side. Scorpion King looks a heck of a lot better obviously.

True, I saw those differences as well.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

I think the comparison with Ultraviolet is going a bit far.

Based on the portions of The Mummy that I have watched so far, the close-ups are the best looking parts.

Maybe a very little bit. I have over 300 BLUs and these two titles are near in the bottom of the list in terms of picture quality, unfortunately.

I suspect, like the early days of DVD, at some point we will be treated to "remastered" editions of these and they will look far better. I hope.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahummer View Post

Maybe a very little bit. I have over 300 BLUs and these two titles are near in the bottom of the list in terms of picture quality, unfortunately.

I suspect, like the early days of DVD, at some point we will be treated to "remastered" editions of these and they will look far better. I hope.

Worse than all the Warner "smoothies" and the Lionsgate wax museum pieces?
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 231
7/23/08 at 12:31pm
SOB, just got the Mummy, it is DNR'd crap, ****!

-Gary
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 231
7/23/08 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

SOB, just got the Mummy, it is DNR'd crap, ****!

-Gary

Gary, you had the HD DVD, right? Was the HD DVD DNR'd too?

Edited to add:

I believe I found my own answer. So, if I am following all this correctly, the BD has extra DNR compared to the HD DVD, which some have characterized as 'minor'. If that's the case, then the HD DVD must've been DNR'd crap too. Or is it your opinion, Gary, that the extra DNR on these releases is not 'minor'?

Whatever the case, I'm glad I hung onto a good number of my Universal HD DVDs, as I will be looking more closely at the comparison threads before deciding to upgrade to BD and divest my HDs. I am morbidly curious how the comparison between the Miami Vice HD and BD will shake out.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 231
7/23/08 at 1:43pm
Paul, I had the HD-DVD and the D-Theater tape, the BD release has slight DNR added 75% of the time, I know this film in HD like the back of my hand and this is the first time it has looked like this

it looks like Sony is going to have to take control of BD releases for everyone and get some quality control going, this is getting old quick

I fear DNR is being used additionally to help with encoding which is far easier the less grain and what it thinks are "artifacts" being present

no excuse

-Gary
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 231
7/23/08 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

I fear DNR is being used additionally to help with encoding which is far easier the less grain and what it thinks are "artifacts" being present

I dont think they DNR a movie because it helps encoding. (In this case)

The movie was on a BD50, and it should be alot easier to just port the HD DVD encode, then DNR and reencode.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 231
7/23/08 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

Paul, I had the HD-DVD and the D-Theater tape, the BD release has slight DNR added 75% of the time, I know this film in HD like the back of my hand and this is the first time it has looked like this

No offense Gary, but I'm not so sure DNR was added.

Personally I think the increased perception of DNR is because the higher bitrates are allowing a closer transparency to the master. Of which the master was probably created with DVD in mind, and is apparently a complete DNR and EE disaster.


Quote:


it looks like Sony is going to have to take control of BD releases for everyone and get some quality control going, this is getting old quick

I fear DNR is being used additionally to help with encoding which is far easier the less grain and what it thinks are "artifacts" being present

no excuse

-Gary

Well said!
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 231
7/23/08 at 2:09pm
I understand guys, but there is not a film I have seen more in HD and on 3 formats now, the BD release has some slight mushiness too it that hasn't been around before on the HD-DVD or D-Theater

my comment on encoding was in general, with DNR the time needed is reduced as well

-Gary
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 231
7/23/08 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

my comment on encoding was in general, with DNR the time needed is reduced as well

DNR, take some time aswell. And if they dont care about quality they could use realtime mpeg2 encoders on the movie instead.

But if DNR is used to save encoding time, the same studio would use it on modern titles aswell.

But when they use DNR on older movies, I guess its because they think they using "poor mans restoration".

DNR on a D5, is cheaper then rescan.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 231
7/23/08 at 2:35pm
true I guess you are right about DNR added would add time as well, DNR in the master would help with that which is what we do not want ever

DNR sucks no matter what

-Gary
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 231
7/23/08 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post


DNR on a D5, is cheaper then rescan.

Is it possible these were mastered on D5 1080i60 before Panasonic supported 1080p24?
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 231
7/23/08 at 4:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroenen View Post

Personally I think the increased perception of DNR is because the higher bitrates are allowing a closer transparency to the master.

So, the BR is more "transparent to the master", showing the DNR more clearly, and less detail...? How would a lower bitrate result in more detail/less smearing in the heiroglyphics? I can't see how the bitrate has been of any benefit/detriment here at all. I would say the contrast has been jacked around with, minor DNR used to compensate, and nothing more.

Reply
Reply
post #138 of 231
7/23/08 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader424242 View Post

So, the BR is more "transparent to the master", showing the DNR more clearly, and less detail...? How would a lower bitrate result in more detail/less smearing in the heiroglyphics? I can't see how the bitrate has been of any benefit/detriment here at all. I would say the contrast has been jacked around with, minor DNR used to compensate, and nothing more.

One other possibility we are overlooking is the simple fact we are comparing two completely different sources, one is a BluRay player the other HD-DVD.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 231
7/23/08 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahummer View Post

One other possibility we are overlooking is the simple fact we are comparing two completely different sources, one is a BluRay player the other HD-DVD.

Agreed (why is it always the most simple, straight forward possibility is usually spot on?)

jahummer, nice theater!
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 231
7/23/08 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader424242 View Post

So, the BR is more "transparent to the master", showing the DNR more clearly, and less detail...? How would a lower bitrate result in more detail/less smearing in the heiroglyphics? I can't see how the bitrate has been of any benefit/detriment here at all. I would say the contrast has been jacked around with, minor DNR used to compensate, and nothing more.


I forgot to add that to my thoughts, the contrast has been messed with a lot, having seen this so many times on 3 HD formats that stuck out to me, but I was so pissed about the DNR that I forgot about it rather quickly

the whites are bloomed pretty good in some scenes, again losing detail

someone thought they were being a clever Dick messing around with this release

-Gary
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 231
7/23/08 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader424242 View Post

Agreed (why is it always the most simple, straight forward possibility is usually spot on?)

jahummer, nice theater!

Thank you!
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 231
7/23/08 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

I forgot to add that to my thoughts, the contrast has been messed with a lot, having seen this so many times on 3 HD formats that stuck out to me, but I was so pissed about the DNR that I forgot about it rather quickly

the whites are bloomed pretty good in some scenes, again losing detail

someone thought they were being a clever Dick messing around with this release

-Gary

The blown out contrast look that seemingly every film is made with now has got to go. It's already played out and will instantly date these films down the line just like the smeary soft focus of the late 70's early 80's.

To screw with an older film to give it a more modern look is shameful.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 231
7/23/08 at 7:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahummer View Post

One other possibility we are overlooking is the simple fact we are comparing two completely different sources, one is a BluRay player the other HD-DVD.

They're direct grabs from the VC-1 files ripped on PC.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 231
7/23/08 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

They're direct grabs from the VC-1 files ripped on PC.

So these are not screenshots?
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 231
7/23/08 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

They're direct grabs from the VC-1 files ripped on PC.

I was referring to the multiple observations by various posters regarding DNR, contrast differences, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 231
7/23/08 at 9:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahummer View Post

So these are not screenshots?

My iPhone camera does not cut it

So I use digital grabs direct from the movie file
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 231
7/23/08 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader424242 View Post

So, the BR is more "transparent to the master", showing the DNR more clearly, and less detail...? How would a lower bitrate result in more detail/less smearing in the heiroglyphics? I can't see how the bitrate has been of any benefit/detriment here at all. I would say the contrast has been jacked around with, minor DNR used to compensate, and nothing more.



Less detail? More smearing on the BD?

It's obvious that you haven't seen the BD version nor have you done A/B comparisons in person. You're basing your less detail and more smearing opinion on a 500x500 PNG and what you think you are, or are not seeing, in a couple of direct screen grabs.

I have the HD DVD versions. The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, and The Scorpion King BD's arrived yesterday from Netflix. I'm looking at these on a 119" screen at a seating distance of 1.1 screen widths via an RS1.

It's not a night and day difference between the two versions in terms of resolvable detail IMO. As far as the BD having less detail - absolutely not.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 231
7/23/08 at 9:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post


So I use digital grabs direct from the movie file

To which we cannot thank you enough.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 231
7/23/08 at 9:44pm
Just my two cents. I know it has EE and DNR but picture quality is fine to me especially since the last time I saw these two movies was on VHS. I could definitely see the EE and DNR don't get me wrong. I figure this is probably the best we'll ever see it so I'll just enjoy the movie. The second Mummy didn't have that bad of EE or DNR did it? or were my eyes just not wanting to see it?
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 231
7/23/08 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroenen View Post

Less detail? More smearing on the BD?

It's obvious that you haven't seen the BD version nor have you done A/B comparisons in person. You're basing your less detail and more smearing opinion on a 500x500 PNG and what you think you are, or are not seeing, in a couple of direct screen grabs.

I have the HD DVD versions. The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, and The Scorpion King BD's arrived yesterday from Netflix. I'm looking at these on a 119" screen at a seating distance of 1.1 screen widths via an RS1.

It's not a night and day difference between the two versions in terms of resolvable detail IMO. As far as the BD having less detail - absolutely not.

the direct screenshots show it pretty well, and I agree with them based on what I see in my HT

-Gary
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Mummy comparison *PIX*