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

Miami Vice comparison *PIX* - Page 3

post #61 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBLsound4645 View Post

That’s an interesting view a bit hard to get around it too fully understand, but interesting.

I wonder what the cinema version is like, hmmm, can anyone get there paws on screen captures of cinema Dolby digital cinema for side by side analysis.

Seriously, what's so hard to understand? The Blu-ray version is clearly closer to replicating the source material with more detail - and more grain which comes as a result of greater resolution.
post #62 of 173
I'm impressed.
post #63 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Here is the other side of the same samples:







This shows more of the "deblocking" action I mentioned earlier.

So with this strange process that you're using which version do you believe is guilty?
post #64 of 173
It's interesting how the talking points have turned. The previous defenders of DNRed Blu-rays are now touting the superiority of high bitrate Blu-ray encoding and how it accurately preserves the grain. Whatever happened to it's good enough???
post #65 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumlad View Post

I partially agree with both you and FoxyMulder. In this case, the blu-ray looks better, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's because of the added bit-rate... it could be that too much filtering was applied before encoding as he stated.

On the other hand, there was at least one or two images for the Mummy that were clearly better (i re-inspected), and the only thing to attribute that to is added bit-rate since we know that (for the most part) the blu-ray had the dnr disadvantage.

I still want to see Transformers, Blades of Glory and Beowulf before I form my final opinion. Universal has been way too inconsistent. Paramount's new releases, however, have looked great on HD DVD, so if they look better on blu-ray, then we can see some real evidence.

The one thing, I'm sure anyone can agree on, is that (assuming no added DNR, filtering, etc), the blu-ray won't look worse at the same or higher bit-rate. Plus with the added benefit of lossless sound, it's likely the blu-ray will be the superior version. The real question becomes how worthy of an upgrade will they be if you already own the HD DVD. For Beowulf, I will probably never watch again. Don't own blades of glory, so it's all up to Transformers

I don't think we disagree on anything. Your mind isn't made up, you typically have a wait-and-see approach and even then wonder if other factors come into play. That's how it should be. But there are also folks who have been so polarized by the great bitrate debates of 2007 that anything that opens the possibility for higher bitrates to show a benefit will be downplayed.

Nevertheless, the bolded part of your post is the salient point. That's the part that will always be debatable. Transformers already had excellent PQ, so if diminishing returns comes into play or even if it's slightly better it may not be worth it to folks. Not every title with a higher bitrate will yield discernable results, nor will every re-encode be guaranteed to be improved.

Brandon
post #66 of 173
this is great! well not that great because now I have to buy this on BD too...

love the way its filmed and cant believe that the HD-DVD can be improved this much, but its great. have always been a HD-DVD supporter because that is all I could afford, but have been hoping since BD won that it would show why, and now it seems it finally has! THIS is the kind of transfer I wanna see on all BDs!
post #67 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc View Post

ROAD WARRIOR worth picking up then?

OT again but yes - one of the titles Warner did almost everything right...
post #68 of 173
Clear win for the BD here. Not really a shock given the same CODEC was used and the size difference of the encode is enormous.
post #69 of 173
An AVS forum member who does not know anything about film, cinematography, or HDTV??? Say it ain't so!

Moreover, whats all this talk about grain on a film shot on video?
post #70 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post


With regards Miami Vice on HD DVD - People are saying it's the bitrate that makes all the difference....How do we know for sure ? Maybe someone just applied too much DNR and the director has seen it and disapproved and made his views known and thus the Blu release is a more faithful transfer.

I just don't believe all this bitrate made the difference theory here.....I think it's whoever did each transfer to the respective formats that made the difference and their use of the technology. After all increasing the bitrate did nothing for The Mummy movies. I think anti Warner posters would love to claim it's the bitrate that made the difference ( yes i know this isn't Warner's release ) but i disagree and think it's got more to do with other factors and the bitrate being higher is misleading people to draw conclusions.

Exactly. DNR/filtering has been utilized on high bitrate BDs to smooth out the look of the film. Why couldn't this have been the case with the HD DVD of Miami Vice? Can anyone point to specific info from an insider which said that DNR was used on the HD DVD to make the encode easier? On the other hand, we do have info from insiders (and evidence like Patton) that studios are using DNR simply because they think that is how potential buyers want their BDs to look.
post #71 of 173
Just to reiterate what everyone has said, grain in film is natural. JBL, please stop posting nonsense in this thread when you clearly have no understanding of what you're talking about. Films are art and entertainment. It's not so much about looking out a window as an art style. Do you judge paintings because the colors chosen aren't things you normally see with your eyes? No. The same should go for film.

Back on topic, I think the clear winner here is the Bluray version. The noise in the film is actually that, not grain. Technically, the term for what we're seeing here is referred to as gain. Anyone who has worked with prosumer and pro cameras before know that a higher gain setting can help compensate for low light shooting, at the expense of adding extra video noise.

I also recall hearing or reading somewhere that Mann chose to add even more of this noise in post production. I can't attest to whether this is true or not, but if I find the article or remember where I heard it from, I'll post a link.

-Brad
post #72 of 173
Wow fighting over the same film only different format, what my dad would say. I don't care just as long as there's an image.

Because its a matter of sophistication. I truly believe that your dad doesn't care about these things. But you have to understand that you are on a forum where discussions take place between people who do care and who, for the most part, have sophisticated eyes when discerning subtle differences in picture quality.

It may seem like nonsense to outsiders but I can assure you its not a subject taken lightly here.
post #73 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

The difference in that last shot is huge. Unfiltered sharp grain/noise vs ugly clumpy mess. Unfortunately I think a lot of people will prefer the filtered softer version. Tell them to go back to dvd.

That's noise not "grain/noise", and it shows just how much HD digital cameras are still lacking when it comes to low light levels.

This is the only title so far I might actually double dip on, thanks for the pix Xylon.
post #74 of 173
Here is a simple DU test on the "HF view" of the hdvd sample:

Original:



720p threshold:



The bulk of the image is relatively unchanged when sent through a 720p pass, with the exception of any remaining HF noise the dnr filter missed and any of the distinct block artifact edges. Maybe it is hovering around the "800p" mark with occasional burps of artifacts in the remaining 1080p range?
LL
post #75 of 173
Call me dumb, what are these grayed out images showing us?
post #76 of 173
The HF detail content.
post #77 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

The HF detail content.

Okie dokie. Glad my tv is color then.
post #78 of 173
Unfortunately, you don't understand the intent.
post #79 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Unfortunately, you don't understand the intent.

No, I guess it went over my head. Anyhow, folk do the craziest things sometimes. Me, I just put the disc in my player and watch the movie. My eyes tell me if it's a good or bad transfer. Can't be bothered arsing around with bitrate meters, looking for a minute spec of dust or other such things. But it is interesting seeing all the others discuss these things.
post #80 of 173
In the event that all you do is play the disc in your player and be happy, then it should not concern you what we discuss in this forum.
post #81 of 173
Quote:


The bulk of the image is relatively unchanged when sent through a 720p pass

Now THAT is interesting information, and bears what I have been saying all along as true: Gear makes a tremendous difference in how you perceive these films and at 720p these transfers are a lot more identical than people want to believe. No, I'm not using a screenshot to 'prove' anything (so don't try to lable me a flipflopper or hypocrite, I never said screenshots are valueless) but I do agree that these two screenshots help illustrate how important it is to look at the whole holistic chain, and that's why I recommend judgements based on the films in motion. It's also a good kick in the ass for folks like me to move to full 1080p.
post #82 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by badboi View Post

No, I guess it went over my head. Anyhow, folk do the craziest things sometimes. Me, I just put the disc in my player and watch the movie. My eyes tell me if it's a good or bad transfer. Can't be bothered arsing around with bitrate meters, looking for a minute spec of dust or other such things.

No problem with that. Many people enjoy subjective, non-quantitative discussion.

This thread just isn't it.
post #83 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

In the event that all you do is play the disc in your player and be happy, then it should not concern you what we discuss in this forum.

Well excuse me for being interested in comparison pics of a title I might buy.
post #84 of 173
You are excused. No need to consider buying, if you already have it in the format of your choice and believe that was the ultimate encoding, to begin with.
post #85 of 173
I must be in the minority here but based on the first three screen shots the HD DVD seems to have more detail while the blu ray is a tad sharper maybe and with more noise.

????
post #86 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

In the event that all you do is play the disc in your player and be happy, then it should not concern you what we discuss in this forum.

Exactly. I'm utterly baffled by the number of people that come here, tell us they don't understand what we are discussing, and then say that we are making much ado of nothing. Why are these people even here???
post #87 of 173
Dang it, I'm gonna have to get the BD now.
post #88 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by apodaca View Post

I must be in the minority here but based on the first three screen shots the HD DVD seems to have more detail while the blu ray is a tad sharper maybe and with more noise.

????

I'm not sure I agree 100%





BTW is it me or is the HD a touch brighter overall?
post #89 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

Exactly. I'm utterly baffled by the number of people that come here, tell us they don't understand what we are discussing, and then say that we are making much ado of nothing. Why are these people even here???

I think we do know. We just cannot do anything about it!
post #90 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadath View Post

Now THAT is interesting information, and bears what I have been saying all along as true: Gear makes a tremendous difference in how you perceive these films and at 720p these transfers are a lot more identical than people want to believe. No, I'm not using a screenshot to 'prove' anything (so don't try to lable me a flipflopper or hypocrite, I never said screenshots are valueless) but I do agree that these two screenshots help illustrate how important it is to look at the whole holistic chain, and that's why I recommend judgements based on the films in motion. It's also a good kick in the ass for folks like me to move to full 1080p.

From your comment I think you got the wrong impression from the DU process (or I'm interpreting your comment incorrectly). It sounds like you're saying since the DU test on the HD DVD shows not much detail loss then 1080p is not necessary. However he didn't run the DU test on the BD version, and making that claim based on one transfer (one version of one transfer even) doesn't represent the potential detail loss on any given title and actual detail loss on other specific titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apodaca View Post

I must be in the minority here but based on the first three screen shots the HD DVD seems to have more detail while the blu ray is a tad sharper maybe and with more noise.

I'm pretty sure you'll ultimately be in the minority on that one, but just for argument's sake, on which shot do you see more detail in the HD DVD version? And it's almost contradictory to say one is sharper but has less detail unless some type of post processing is being used, I would think.

Brandon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Miami Vice comparison *PIX*