The Mummy Returns comparison *PIX* - Page 2

What's funny is how certain reviewers claimed the Blu-ray version was superior with greater detail. So much for that.

Makes me even more glad I'm now purple...

Is this Universal's way of getting back at us for having to switch formats and clear out inventory? ****ing retards.

Let's all look forward to 40 Year Old Virgin with MORE DNR and EE. Scary Movie combined with GONY.

The eyes will see what the bit-rate meter tells them to see

I will admit though... in the first Mummy comparison thread, the shot with Anck Su Namun .. the background did appear a bit sharper.. so the potential is there... it just needs to be used properly.

Overall, I think we are now in a period where we're going to quantity over quality... (with the exception of new releases and important catalog (Godfather -- hopefully)). I think with the PS3 sales in the US + standalones, there will be an install base around 5 million before the xmas season...

That's probably true. I can't help but think almost everything released today will be re-released as happened with DVD with new masters and transfers being done. Hopefully the anti-DNR message will have sunk into the studio heads by then, as well.

DNR = makeup for film

That comparison really shows off the DNR on the BD. that being said, it hasn't removed very much detail at all. Though I still prefer the look of the HD DVD (which I own, thankfully), the DNR isn't a deal breaker on the BD.

Hard for me to tell looking at the screenshots of the boy on my work laptop here - but on the HD DVD...is that actually more detail and film grain or is it compression artifacting grain on his face?

My thoughts exactly. If that is "detail" on the HDDVD I may be able to do with less detail.

They removed most of the child's freckles!

Lossless or not, I am with you and why I still hunt for cheap HD DVDs (as well as Bluray sales). The difference is minimal in my book and not worth the double dip if you have it on red. Now, if you don't have the title yet OR you only support(ed) Bluray, go for Blu hands down.

I have a hard time believing that it's just compression noise in the HD-DVD captures. That's grain, baby.

Does the Blu-ray side remind anyone else of the smoothness quite a few Warner titles share?

It certainly could be film grain - but I'm just not so sure as I'm not seeing any detail loss looking at both images now on a larger LCD screen.

I'd like for Stacey Spears input. At times it can be a little hard to distinguish between film grain and compression grain at ~2K on a home video format.

that is putrid

compression grain? that is a new one on me

-Gary

It's not soft enough to match the Warner look (Batman Begins, for example).

Do you really think all of the grain you're seeing on every release is actually film grain? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's compression artifacting grain or noise or a mixture of the two.

At times it can be hard to distingiush between the two; other times it's more obvious. I think in the shot above it's difficult to tell.

compression noise comes from severely overly compressed sources, it is also much larger and coarser in size than high frequency noise and details that DNR attempts to remove

no one can rule out some level of noise from the processes to get film to BD, but that is not compression noise on the HD-DVD

-Gary

yeah because that Warner soft is not DNR, BB is just a soft film (which seems to be a tendency of Nolan), it is very detailed IMHO

there is a huge difference between soft films and studio made soft BD releases due to DNR

-Gary

Well I'm gonna have to say you guys are REALLY reaching on this one. The first couple comparisons don't have anything that calls itself out, especially in comparison to each other. The kid shots look like they have a slight difference in brightness as well.

But you guys just keep having fun.

Yeah what he said. I don't see much if any difference in those comparisons and don't quite see what all the fuss is about. If a film in it's true form has grain and then when transfered to DVD the grain is removed causing unwanted effects to the image like removing fine detail then yes it's a problem but those last shots of the kids face there is no detail difference in them so I don't see what the problem is. In fact it looks more like compression artifacts than it does grain to me. The BR is clearly better looking and more natural looking.

do you want to address the differences in the grabs in a more thorough logical way or just poke at us as nitpickers and commit a Ad Hominem you are wasting your time because contrary to what you may believe other people can get things right and Xylon's screengrab method is pretty much foolproof

furthermore many of us don't need screenshots or grabs to tell us what we see on our screens, mushiness is there that wasn't on the HD-DVD, my system is capable of showing this, I am sorry that you can't see it or want to admit it, sheesh

as a reviewer I am not kissing studio ass and becoming a whore for them, others can do as they wish, I have standards and principals

-Gary

I just put these screengrabs on a usb drive and viewed them through my PS3 so I could compare them the way I'd be viewing it. While the "cleanup" is noticeable, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal. It shouldn't be even remotely noticeable in motion, unless you sit quite close to a really large projection screen.

Why pick such an extremely dark shot for comparison purposes? Why not use a close-up with better lighting?

By "close-up," I meant close-up of a face, like the shot of the boy, except not so dark.

To me, faces are where the PQ mostly lives or dies.

Thanks.