Baraka comparison *PIX* - Page 4

Ummm...I have fiber cable and I confirmed I am getting full 1920x1080i. There are times when some programming including movies rival and beats BD in terms of PQ. On Uni HD, some films are loaded with grain, shown in proper aspect ratio and have amazing detail. HDnet movies are the same and many times better. There are other channels that programming in HD at times equals or exceeds BD and in both cases movies or programming I am comparing to highly rated BD PQ by reviewers and in this forum.

My point. Baraka equals or in most cases has better PQ than the above mentioned and virtually every BD released to date. I cut grass for a living and don't work for someone third party trying to push BD.

I find it the oddest juxtaposition: that in a thread with some of the most amazing Blu Ray image captures I've seen, and the greatest difference between the DVD and Blu Ray I've seen...that much of the thread is taken up complaining about the Blu Ray's image quality.

I'm all for pushing for the best...but it's at times like these that we of AVS seem to border on neurosis. I guess I have to be glad that there ARE people that picky (that even Baraka is not good enough) because it's the complainers who likely get things improved. But at times like these I feel like I'm glad someone else is being neurotic in my place, as I'd be happy as a pig-in-sh#t with this Blu Ray.

What, you are ok with the transfer You didn't get the message to leave unless you change your ways Over blowing every issue and nitpicking every pixel at 400% magnification and shout from the mountains about all the negative aspects?

Or did you burn your warning like I did

This is an interesting thread. I don't even know what to think. The opinions are so polarized that I feel there must be a disconnect somewhere.

Brandon

Ah, but those were fun to see the reactions of 1 or 2 pixels being different on one scene during a freeze frame and the vastly superior version for it, lol ... yes slight exageration.

Have you seen it yet Brandon?

I would really be interested in hearing your thoughts once you have.

Forgive me for expecting something this sharp: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/large/13.jpg

Here's a few pics. I dont have comparisons so if needed, I'll move them to another thread.

That's sharp, but I would be willing to bet that some of the landscape scenes in Baraka are just as good (or better). I was mesmerized by almost all of them; in fact, I hit pause several times to allow my eyes to take in the detail.

Thanks stumlad! When I saw the picture of the tribesman (when I watched Baraka) I recall saying to myself: "This is the most detailed facial close-up I have ever seen."

Hm, for the most part the images with halos haven't looked too processed to me so I was guessing the halos came from some other issue, but that shot has a distinctly EE'd look to it reminiscent of that Gangs of New York shot from the first post to a lesser degree... hopefully this is an isolated instance.

You make the point of EXPECTATIONS!

Brandon mentioned a possible disconnect.

Here is what I think it is.

Xylon said what some others have said and expected:


"There is plenty of scenes where it looks better than the rest. But still in comparison with other movies its definitely not as good. I expect better results from the transfer and when the promos are yelling and shouting 8K Ultradigital HD!!!!, shot in 70mm!!!!!, . . . unrivaled in its sheer visual beauty!!!!, Its REFERENCE PQ on my setup the best ever!!!, There is no such thing as DNR or EE on Blu-ray!!!! Hey LOOK!!! I found some interesting YOUTUBE links , OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!etc, etc.

So again in some scenes the picture is as bad as Patton where there is an obvious smeared or waxy look. Go ahead check it out yourselves guys on your setup. Then post you observations. Just a reminder that your viewing set has to be calibrated properly (and anyone complaining that calibration to proper levels including color temp to 65K is not necessary you are welcome to leave the thread. There are other forums who indulge in PQ assessment with "Torch" mode on.)"

I am not denying some are seeing real issues, but the bar was set so high prior to the BD release and seeing it that any issues will be noted and even exaggerated.

I really believe some have "trained" themselves so well, seeing flaws takes precedence over seeing an overall high quality transfer.

The reason I say this is we generally have a majority of members side with issues of excessive DNR on a particular title with a half dozen or so hard core for pristine PQ forum members really noticing issues. This time we have those same hard core members noticing, but others who usually go along are saying they don't even see the issues, hence the disconnect.

But, but...his shoulder is really soft and lacks detail!

i've seen a more detailed closeup... though to be fair it was a little bit closer

And it's also why, I think, there is so much resistance to accepting the truth.

Let's face it. The strong edge enhancement is clear in many of the screenshots, as is the DNR. These tricks remove detail and replace it with artificial, obnoxiously distracting elements that give the illusion of more detail from longer viewing distances to ensure that even those with smaller TVs think they're seeing something sharp and punchy.

Sure, the Blu-ray looks better than the DVD- what besides the failure that was Traffic doesn't look better than its DVD counterpart? The concern is over the ranking of the movie as being among the best Blu-ray is capable of, because it's simply not deserving. Tons of Blu-ray movies have better resolution, and don't need EE to look awe-inspiring. If we all rated Baraka a 5/5, then all those movies would have to be changed to at least a 6 or 7/5.

Mr. Chekov... Your agonizer...

Really?! Would you like to list some of them? I mean, if there are "tons," then you should be able to come up with...oh, let's say 10 titles for a starter.

I do believe the need to defend one's position is leading some to make statements (of extreme hyperbole) they can't possibly defend.

I have it at the top of my queue but it could be a week or two before I get to it. I still haven't watched How the West Was Won from netflix yet because I'm trying to catch up to watching all of the titles I've been buying lately.

Brandon

Hey Brandon...we still miss you (and Rob) in the PQ thread!

I will look forward to your comments after seeing Baraka. You always had a knack for being objective, so I trust you'll give it to us straight.

We need a little humor in here...

I am not seeing this strong use of DNR like so many of you guys seem to be seeing. I am seeing some ringing (EE?) in some shots. Is this a perfect transfer? No such thing as a perfect transfer in my eyes. Why? Some people like grain. Some people hate grain. And for somebody who hates grain or confuses grain with noise (and I would guess there are alot of these people) a title with grain would not be perfect either. Just look through comments of "300" on HD DVD and Blu-Ray. People actually thought their players were defective or a setting was off because the PQ looked so bad (to them).


I am still blown away by the difference between the DVD and the BD. It is night and day. It is not even close. I cannot imagine choosing the DVD version over the Blu-Ray version, and there is no upscaler in the world that can compensate for the abysmal state of the DVD screencaps. It (the DVD PQ) is really bad.

From the previous locked Baraka thread Oliver Klohs said:
"Regarding relative vs. absolute size there is definitely an added impact due to larger absolute size, anybody who does think this is not true should try and compare a 3ft to a 10ft image from one screen width away "

Is there credence in the above quote, or is "impact" in this context merely a psychological, subjective, perceptual issue. Is there an actual scientific/mathematical/optical explanation to back up Oliver Klohs statement, or was he just joking as indicated by the smiley face? I'm trying to understand how a projector at home throwing an image 10 feet wide viewed from 1.25 screen widths away cannot be as visually "impactful" as a movie screen at the cinema that is 70 or 100 feet wide being viewed also from 1.25 screen widths other than in the abstract or subjective.

Sorry to sidetrack but I thought this was an interesting issue. It was in the other Baraka thread...

Am I out of touch or is the above statement reasonably accurate. Can someone else back this statement up, 'cause if this is true that fiber optic HD can blow Blu-ray out of the water I might actually consider moving to an area that has fiber optic cable.

HughMC, did you say you cut grass for a living... or cut fiber for a living...

Why the hell didn't this movie have either a commentary or a pop-up track of some sort for labeling locations. For first time viewings, for emotional impact of course you woudn't indulge in such tom-foolery but upon later viewings it woulda been nice. Chronos had it.

Sorry to distract from all the intellectual combat... Or neurosis as someone put it. I go shut up now.

...Aside from the horrid packaging (Looks like I'll be shopping for empty cases soon), I noticed that the disc itself is flimsier than most blu-rays. I wonder if it has the scratch coating on it. My LG blu-ray/hd dvd drive had a really hard time reading it, and took a while to recognize it. The drive made some very weird noises... Has this happened to anyone else?

It would be interesting to know the size of the viewing screen and seating distance of those who think this is the best image quality they have ever seen and of course those who see the EE and DNR.....

Are the ones who don't see it viewing on smaller sets well i know from experience that most things can look great on smaller viewing sets but when you switch to 60+inches and seat yourself at a good distance then faults can become more apparent.

I know you can't always tell the overall image quality with just selected screenshots but to me some of these screenshots look worse image quality than for example Romancing The Stone which i just viewed at the weekend and i thought that film looked pretty good but had a little minor DNR applied but still very good and a great film - Now that was shot 35mm and this is 70mm and reviews of this film suggest amazing image quality but the screenshots suggest quality is variable.

Is this film presented in a 2.20:1 format on Blu Ray ?

Ok well i just read some reviews....It does appear to be the 2.20:1 print they are using and the reviews all call it breathtaking image quality.....I didn't realise this was from 1992 which means the last proper 70mm ( 65mm ) fully shot film was Branagh's version of Hamlet in 1996.