The Mummy Returns comparison *PIX* - Page 3

+1 Completely agree.

Wow.

Those screen caps of the boy are SO different that they can be classified as "putrid"??

And since he doesnt think the difference is as bad as folks are making it out to be, he is "becoming a whore for the studios" without "standards and principles"?

Dramatic much?

My system is just as capable of showing me details and mushiness Gary, if not more so. I actually have a projector that can show the full resolution of 1080p and I'm not using any video processing. Never mind that your CRT is going to smooth the image to begin with.

As for your last comment, think what you want, I honestly don't care. But you guys are going to a level of ridiculousness with this that I'll gladly stay out of. There have definitely been some bad looking BD titles recently, but this wasn't one of them.

I don't see a difference in those screenshots really, they both look equally "soft" if anything. Only thing I can detect is some macroblocking in the HD DVD version, this is NOT obvious DNR/EE I'd say - like Patton or Dark City.

I beg to differ (and I wasn't questing your display Kris), all digital displays have a slight DNR effect in themselves compared to a high-end CRT in the first place, check the moving judder bar test pattern on DVDO scalers on one of the better digital displays, compare it to my CRT as for smoothing, I guess you could say that, but a CRT is more natural where a digital gives a "different" image and for the record my setup will display and resolve 1:1 alternating pixel patterns both vertically and horizontally, not all CRT's = soft images

and as for your video processing comment, I don't know where you are going with that but you don't like perfect y/c delays (meaning none), top level deinterlacing, perfected top and bottom levels so no clipping occurs via contrast/brightness controls, aspect ratio control, image shifting control,proper DVI to HDMI conversion, HD-SDI capability, 10-bit 4:2:2 processing and output, etc. etc.

but fair enough, I will just leave it at that you can stay out of this if you want, but others wish to push for the best

just for the record, is your opinion the same of The first Mummy film BD release?

-Gary

CRT gives a more "natural" image compared to what? What is the definition of "natural" in regards to image quality? Filmlike? Which by most people's definition means softer.

I like to avoid video processing whenever I can. I have no issues with clipping, Y/C delay, image shifting or anything else you mentioned. I like to avoid conversions (I don't use DVI) and color space conversion whenever possible. Converting to a 10-bit signal is great but remember that signal is going to be re-converted to 8-bit RGB when it gets to your guns.


I'm all for pushing for the best. I just think people are starting to take this a little further than it needs to and whenever that happens you get these bitter arguments that degrade to nasty levels. There are plenty of titles that deserve harsh criticism and I won't take anything away from that, I just don't think this is even close to one of them. And the comparitives show little to no difference at all IMHO.

I thought the first film looked good but not great. You can tell they boosted detail from time to time which gives the image a harder look at times. The stock footage doesn't blend well either. It didn't look as good as this one did though.

the latest addition to my setup is a 100% true 4:2:2 HDMI 1.3 input card for my NEC CRT projector

http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6141

this allows me to remove all conversions to DVI and go 100% 4:2:2 from source thru the scaler and into the PJ, the card features a 200mhz 12bit D/A converter, heck I can even try deep color upconverting when it hits

the difference between this and a DVI 8-bit input in my system is worlds apart in comparison, us CRT guys are not stuck on 8-bit DVI Kris my point of the scaler doing this conversion best was meant for DVI only displays, of which there are quite a few and if you have one a scaler comes in quite handy

I insist on 4:2:2 components as well, which is one reason why HD-SDI is so good, very few BD players up until late have had anything but 4:4:4 output which is another colorspace conversion, you are aware of all this already though so no point going off on that

-Gary

The biggest difference I see with that first zoom is that the hilt of the knife looks blurrier in the HD DVD version and sharper in the BD version. I am just looking on a desktop LCD monitor and some of the other differences might be slight enough that it is hard to tell whether they are dust on the monitor or something actually in the picture. On this monitor it looks like the sand might be a little different, but not as much different as the end of the knife (which looks better to me on the BD version here) and both pictures look like they have posterization type effects with the still images zoomed on this monitor. There may be some differences in detail on his neck, but that looks pretty subtle to me. Probably more subtle than the differences could be between grabbing an I-Frame and a B-Frame in the same encode.

Are there some specific spots in the zoomed image of the Rock that you can point out as problems you see there?

Xylon,

I don't remember if you already addressed this, but are you doing anything to make sure you get I-Frames from each encode?

--Darin

Kris,

You are the best reviewer in the business as far as I am concerned. It is great to see you are the voice of reason in these "the sky is falling" blu-ray threads. Forum members are obsessing over posted pictures and numbers etc. instead of just watching the movie. One needs to watch these films on thier own displays and judge for themselves.

Tom

Not the I frame thing again...

I agree Tom. Kris is one of the best reviewers in the business.

It's also great to see Darin posting as well. He too would make a great reviewer IMO.

While the DNR may have smoothed over some detail, I've noticed that some details stand out more than they do on the HD DVD. For example, the circled areas in the following pic were immediately noticeable to me. Still probably won't buy these anytime soon, though.

im not reading here anymore until I watch this on blu-ray...but just let it be known that if it wasn't for Xylon's screencaps this forum wouldn't be as exciting for ME.

Still waiting on the babysitters comparison pics lol

Wow. The DNR craze has reached a fury that would make Joseph McCarthy proud. Anything and everything is DNR related. It is utterly absurd and way too dramatic. Is there DNR on some BDs? YES! Is it present in this movie? I can't really tell...which means that if I spend my time worrying about it, I am missing the great picture, awesome audio, and pretty decent movie. Universal should be commended for an outstanding catalog title, period.

I don't know about you guys but I watched The Mummy on HD DVD 2 nights ago with wifey (she never saw it) and I must say it looked excellent as it did the 1st time I saw it. I put it on my Netflix queue to see and hear on Bluray. I might not have the best system out there but it's far better than most who are considered mass market and I doubt I'll see a vast difference between the two.

I'm all about debate and comparison but sometimes us purples are right about not worth the double dip if they own it on red already (and same would hold true if the format victor was Tosh). To most this is entertainment, to some it is science. I tend to keep it a mixture of both but I NEVER forget about the entertainment part

New buyers go for it. Current HD owners it seems like a pass to me (and I haven't seen the Blu yet, should be here this weekend or Monday)

Tom,

Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad you find the reviews helpful.

Just to clear the air a bit here I really want to applaud Xylon for what he is doing in these threads. I think it is a great service to show potential customers issues that they might not be aware of and give studios a look at what we're complaining about.

For this title I didn't think people should be casting stones as there was no obvious issues during playback and at least on my setup there was a noticeable (but not overwhelming) increase in detail and dimension with the Blu-ray release.

Right now a lot of people are getting a bit carried away with some of this commotion but I do think it is a great service to show people issues with titles and point them out directly to any studio reps that may be browsing.

Here, you can use ffdshow's OSD controls:



As for how much difference there is, I dunno, considering the frame sizes reported by the same display indicate that I-frames aren't always the largest - in fact they're often much smaller.

I think life is too short to worry about hitting or not hitting an I frame. If the compression is up to snuff all the frames should be fine.

I'm going to go against Xylon for the first time here and take the Blu-Ray. After putting them in Photoshop and overlaying them, going back and forth. I think many of the BR shots have slightly more edge detail and focus. While at the same time having slightly less noise and sometimes slightly less interior body detail. It's a real close one here. The kid shot is a tough one. I think I prefer the HD DVD on that one.

Definitely some issues with the grain structure of the bd, on that last shot her face looks pretty ugly in comparison to the hd-dvd.

Definitely smoother BD....

Having seen the many comparison shots Xylon has done for many movies using DNR I must say that the studios have no clue what HD media is about. Doing this on standard DVD no one would have noticed. On HD it is killing detail and trying to give us a Direct Digital Transfer look. I want the detail and the grain both kept intact and they need to get rid of the people that think this is alright to do. I will be holding onto my HD-DVD's of the Mummy movies for quite some time.

Later Everyone
Brian

that last screenshot has convinced me the hd-dvd has better PQ! XYLON is this from The Mummy or Mummy Returns?

After comparing them as well, the slight edge goes to HD-DVD in terms of picture quality. However, they both look completely identical in motion with no discernible difference that the human eye can detect at that frame speed (24fps). That's something to consider when watching. The DNR is far and away less apparent than a movie like Pan's Labyrinth, which was completely viewable in motion. This is very light DNR.

However, I'm still against the use of DNR in high definition media to fit what the average consumer expects.

-Brad