The Thing comparison *PIX* - Page 4  

I could tell you why, but then I'd be banned. But seriously, these reviewers either a.) have crappy equipment or b.) can't easily catch image deficiencies without doing proper image examination on a computer (which they should in that case).

Of course there are those of us who do see these deficiencies without having to actually view the image closely on a computer, but none of us are doing these reviews.

Now, these various reviewers have many reasons for not seeing these deficiencies in image quality, and many make excuses. Some say the deficiencies don't matter when viewed on their equipment, which typically ranges from low res or smaller monitors. These people can't be bothered to examine the image correctly and provide useful advice for those of us with projectors or a discerning eye, so they just say "good enough" and move on to the next review. Of course these reviewers may be pissed when in the future they get some nice equipment, they find that many of their favorite movies are lacking in quality, oops guess you should've been on the studio's butt about the issues instead of glossing over them due to low-end equipment.

There are those reviewers who do have the right equipment, but I can't think of a single one that can actually spot dnr, or artifacts on their system unless the dnr is major. We've seen this in the past, they talk up a new release, and when Xylon shows us the truth, they say they didn't spot it when watching the movie and that it's "not a big deal."

I do feel that reviewers need to take the video rating seriously, and do whatever it takes to give us a true review of the quality. Not how it looked when viewed on a neighbor's 20" set from 30 feet away, not an opinion but the facts. We need proper reviews so that the studios know when they're going too far, and so that any of you without good equipment now won't be punished when you finally do get that brand new 150" home theater. We're all here because we love movies and we want to see the movie in the best way possible, these reviewers who don't take video quality seriously are hurting us all. Even if they love dnr, or whatever, the point is they need to tell us the truth about the image so we can make the decision, why do we always have to wait for Xylon to show us what the studio's have done to an image? Step up to the plate reviewers!

You are joking right ?

How can it "look" more high definition when removing the grain removes the high definition detail with it ?

Answer me that one please.

Most people originally wanted pan and scan until it was pointed out that you get less picture information and the black bars give you more....Maybe education needs to happen here and people like yourself need to realise grain is a part of film.

The thing is they keep doing this to great movies and it's hardly preserving the heritage of film is it...It's dumbing everything down just because the digital satellite viewer watches their super smooth football matches or their DNRed to bits smooth broadcasts....People are being misled into accepting DNRed releases as HD when the HD detail is being removed.

unfortunately I don't think he is...

I guess you like that they also removed detail? It's very clear from these pics that detail was lost in the BD release.

Minority? I didn't know Blu-ray was "mainstream" already. Go back to DVD if your so pro-DNR


You are not alone on this feeling. I always thought Warner HD DVD's looked a touch sharper on my setup then the Blu-ray doubles do.

yep

Here is another opinion about various stuff.
I think why some folks do not see these DNR flaws during 'motion' are victims of persistent vision.
Since one is being bombarded by a sub par picture consistently at 24fps/-60hz their minds begin to simply accept the scrubbed imagery as fine due to no proper frame of reference. If one or two frames periodically did not suffer from the DNR scrub, while viewing the film in motion, people would notice the loss of clarity.

Frankly, the excuse of direct caps are not indicative of the final product in motion is asinine and pure rationalization. For dvd this argument has merit but for BR it holds water as much as a cheese grater.

Next the excuse of DNR as an effective method to repair print damage is out right wrong. The DNR used in the instance of The Thing does not repair the flaws, it just softens them, along with fine detail and grain structure.

If I knew how to post a pix I would share a quick Photoshop touch up I did of the Cap of the guys watching the chopper. I removed the chemical blotch and still retained grain and detail, is my example perfect no, again I did it in a few minutes but it does illustrate that with some TLC, repairs can be done w/o Fudging Up!-Kudos to Vader424242 who got my reference.

To me it is becoming more apparent that the many reviewers do not have the proper knowledge and training to correctly evaluate BR movies. Then they justify and rationalize their ignorance with blatant misinformation and excuses when they are proven wrong by the like of Xylon.
Excuses such as; one will not see the loss of detail in motion. In the words of Paul Klipsch, "BS!" __http://www.klipsch.com/products/details/bs-lapel-button.aspx

Recent DNR fest I watched on a Sony Pearl-40 projector on a 110" screen was Dark City and I could see the DNR and EE in full 1080p Gory, err I mean Glory.
It sucked, took me right out of the experience of enjoying the film on its own merits. I will admit after a while I began to accept this putrescence of a presentation.
Another title is the German HD-DVD version of Silent Hill vs the US BR version. US-BR is so damn soft because it was DNRed, while the HD-DVD version was sharp, detailed, and retained its grain. Also better color timing as well.

I for one will be writing some disgruntled letters, with proper grammar and punctuation, to various studios about my disappointment and dismay over my 'minority' view.

Best Regards
KvE

I'll join the masses and be thankful I held onto my red copy! Just makes me wonder how Serenity will turn out! I still have my red copy of that (and it's not going anywhere), but the single-disc Serenity DVD, Serenity BD and Firefly BD (definitely buying) are the only discs missing from the Joss Whedon "library." DTS-HD MA certainly can't hurt (or be much of an improvement, as we've seen)...

Anybody see the little action going on, on the Doc's back right before it disappears behind the hump of that bloody specimen? ...a telltale sign of the interlaced origins of whatever master they dug up for this release? It's an otherwise near-perfect deinterlace job, though, but that little spot managed to survive, nonetheless! Potentially these little spots may have been the impetus, in part, to "filter down" the detail of the deinterlaced print even further?

See I nearly agreed with you, but the problem here is Universal are spending money to make things worse. Which is why I believe it comes down to having people employed/contracted by the studios don't have a personal interest in the work they're putting out.

I knew it! I always thought there was something funny about the U.S. release of Silent Hill.

I saw it in theaters as well as on Starz On Demand and I thought it looked sharp. All the reviews I read about the Blu-ray release said it was soft looking. I couldn't believe it.

I guess the German HD DVD version explains everything.

It's all interrelated at some degree, don't you think, gooki? You chose the term "personal interest", while I chose the term "budget scope". In the end, it all comes down to motivating person x to task y, at some quality level z. While it is possible that person x may take on the task as a labor of love to the material with no real budget backing him, it is unlikely. Money is going to ultimately put that person(s) x in the captain's chair to do that job. Lacking that, you can be assured the most indifferent persons (probably just glad to be employed) will be put to the task using the most automated and low-tech procedures as possible to make the project as cheap as possible.

Really, I think we are discussing the same point in agreement.

On my part, Universal is loosing sale after sale with this idiotic practices. Un-freaking-believeable!!!

Their titles will need to be examined on individual basis.

Anyone has info on American Gangster, The Kingdom and Land Of The Dead BD x HD-DVD? These are some of my favorite movies.

Xylon, The Great , any chance you would be doing similar comparisons for these?

I gotta hand it to you, you're my hero

I always passed on The Thing on HDDVD since I planned on it being one of the free picks. Now Frys is the only place that still has any, and cheap too, but don't seem to have The Thing. The better audio is another point in favor.

I'm thinking I'll bite the bullet since I mostly think it doesn't look TOO bad (only really noticible from these screen shots on teh closeups) and I still think there's plenty of HD detail visible in the pic... mostly a bit of clay face and the lack of grain (which I generally like). The brighter/day scenes definitely look like there's less of a delta while the differences are more pronounced on the darker/knight scenes from these screen shots.

On the autopsy/pile of gore comparisons, I am not seeing much, if any of a difference. Maybe it's the screen on my Macbook Pro?

I think a little perspective would be helpful here in recognizing that the pq in either format is not exactly stellar. While there is certainly a distinct incremental difference between the 2 formats, that's all it really is- incremental. In the big picture, both are rather lackluster for detail. One is just a bit more lackluster. The grain is actually present in both versions. The core differences are simply a difference in filtering (what corner frequency and what slope). It's not excusable by any stretch, but it's not like the better one has the grain absolutely "preserved" and the other has been outright "cleaned".

If you really are a fan of this movie and wish a proper treatment for it, then neither format should be deemed "acceptable". You should be demanding a proper restoration of the material from the studio, altogether (it may make zippo difference in the outcome, of course, but at least you have your sights on something that would really make a difference). Short of that, buy whichever version works the best for you. It's not like the differences gained or lost are going to be jawdropping. Probably a year from now, not a soul will even be concerned that there was a difference in the first place. Regardless of which version of it you end up owning, it will still be that "bastard" version of an attempt to introduce the movie to hi-def, eh?

Did anybody even do a DU test? It's probably well below 720p's worth in detail, altogether.

*Cough
Give them an inch...
*Cough, uuggghh.

;}~

Best Regards
KvE

PS Yes a proper restoration would properly eliminate various film imperfections, maybe even the wires, but choosing of the two transfers, sorry man the HD-DVD is obviously better. One step less from perfection is better than two or three steps back. Incremental improvement, that is for each to decide I suppose, but my money is the HDD. Now just to find a copy for my lowly HD-D3.

Agreed, and I agree that the detail lost in the sweatshirt shot is bad.

but look at that shot again and realize that false detail (for example in the green box top) has been cleaned off giving that metal box a much more natural look at the expense of the details in faces... Obviously the wrong choice but there is method to the madness when you realize that the goal here isnt to satisfy the purists but the masses.

And THAT's the bottom line. Call it not caring, call it catering to the mob, but the U-control madness is clue #1, as is the complete stripping of the quality extras. Those are easy to call out. DNR is harder to quantify but it sure doesnt bother Joe 6 pack the way it does those who know better....

Xylon, any chance of digging up that dog shot tho? I can take an SLR shot of it on my screen but it wont have the same impact I'm sure. Have I mentioned how much HDMI's robbing me of my fair use rights to take a screen cap BLOWS really is, even for us non-disciples of the allmighty clipboard?

Hey Mr. Hanky, why am I seeing more wrinkles in faces on both the BD and the HD DVD versus the time warp 2011 transfer?

This is sad, though... Excellent film, and I'd love to upgrade, but geez... how many HD releases do you wait for?

Question? Could the issue be less a matter of temporal NR, just heavy vertical filtering, softening out every aspect of the transfer? Without seeing it in motion it's hard for me to tell, but I know that vertical filtering is built into MPEG-2 encoders as a way to simplify the output and thus avoid more obvious artifacting. It could be that Universal isn't actively trying to NR these transfers, they just aren't familiar with how to best use newer tools, or have just slipped into newer templates that aren't doing them any favors?

Just a thought... not that it helps The Thing look any sharper.

I think we should suspect that all sorts of filtering is "on the table", rather than just dnr. Short of a full-ride restoration, it really is an exercise in applying 7 different ways to polish a "turd" into something inoffensive, but remotely hi-def, eh?

Oh, absolutely. Filtering is a last ditch effort for crappy analog video sources, at best.

I just worry that if Universal is paying any attention to us they'll think "Noise Reduction? What are those crazy AVS people talking about?" and then continue to crank up the vertical filtering, never equating the two.

You make a very good point! Though dnr would seem to be an obvious suspect, we should not get too fixated on that, as the only source of evil filtering effects at work. We should not overlook that it could just as well be a simple low-pass filter they are using which has "softened" the native grain (and any detail that would exist in the same domain).

Staying with my HD-DVD version. Anyone compare the other 2 in the starter pack?

wow! just amazing universal...glad I kept my hd-dvds...last time I volume matched the Mummy Returns DD+ and DTSHDMA tracks on this release I found no "upgrade" in the audio. So I don't feel like i'm missing out on any of these re-releases on blu-ray.

Damn. Just cancelled my UK preorder. Was hoping it would be everything that the HD DVD was plus lossless audio and PiP. But unless Universal did the unexpected and used a different encode, I'll stick with my trusty HD DVD.

The real kick in the teeth is that, looking at the specifications thread, the HD DVD took up roughly 21GB total. If Universal had just gone the lazy route and ported over the video and extras while changing out the DD+ with DTS-HD MA, it should have all fit on a BD25 anyway.

I think it's because some people mistakenly believe that HD has a "cleaner" look than SD. They think that since it's an advanced technology, it should look more "pleasing" and that means cleaner.

Which reviewers have made this claim? Please don't put words in people's mouths.

In his reply to me Kadath who i think is a reviewer more or less said exactly that.....His post is above and his score for this film remains the same even though he now knows it's been filtered to hell....For me i find it annoying when reviewers make excuses for these transfers because they could save us all money and get the studio's to listen if they pointed out the bad faults instead of simply glossing over them with excuses.

Sorry Kadath but you are failing your audience by taking the stance you have on this one. I have read several reviews at that site and they fail their audience by not mentioning the problems with each transfer with regards DNR or whatever they are using to smooth the image and get rid of grain....The Sixth Sense is another absolutely terrible review.....Sites like this are part of the problem now as reviews are not pointing out defects and instead i now have to rely on a place like this for my info....Such a shame too....Perhaps it's because studio's won't send review copies if they get lots of bad negative press for their transfers but whatever the case may be i am shocked at some of the reviews at the site you work for.

Sorry again if i am being harsh but where my money is concerned i am harsh and i do not want to spend money on transfers like this.....The general public at large might but then the general public at large are reading great reviews when they should be notified and educated on the faults of this release and others. I am not at all happy with the ignorance shown in the reviewing community of late. They should be more critical of releases like this while praising the great ones such as Iron Man or How The West Was Won and then studio's will listen when sales fall....They would fall too if reviewers marked down shoddy DNRed crap but it's not happening and grain is seen as a defect when it should be welcomed and preserved.

I mean HTF's review of Scary Movie says flesh tones look natural and then proceeds to give it 4.5 out of 5 stars for video quality....Reviewers should need qualifications to review if they are going to miss the mark by so much because at the end of the day you are becoming part of the problem and part of the reason we are getting this DNRed junk thrown at us and i am annoyed about it and venting on these forums. You could do so much to stop this happening....Bad reviews of image quality would mean bad sales which would make studio's think twice....You do have the power in your hands to get us the best possible transfers but too many sites equate grain with noise or do not have a clue...They give us a great film review but on the technical side of things they fail us all so badly and they could make such a difference if they weren't so afraid of not ever getting their pre-release review copies.

As for the halo's around the dog....Let's see....Soften the image with DNR then crank up the sharpness with EE and there is your halo's.

How can you group "grain" and "dirt"? One has nothing to do with the other.

If memory serves, differences were easiest to spot on the Prisoner of A. and
on another of the 5 movies, the title of which I don't remenber instantly.
But I don't think it was the fifth (though I remember mild differences on the fifth movie). For the record: I used an (American) RS2 with an (American) HD-XA2 and a Japanese PS3.

Enough.