AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Band of Brothers DVD, HBO MPEG-2, HD DVD & Blu-ray comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Band of Brothers DVD, HBO MPEG-2, HD DVD & Blu-ray comparison *PIX* - Page 3

post #61 of 257
11/15/08 at 10:07pm
I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums....
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 257
11/15/08 at 10:15pm
I'm just happy to see the difference is not stark enough that I would feel the need to spend gobs of money on acquiring the HD DVD's at this point, not to mention having yet another title which requires a long-term commitment to HD DVD hardware.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 257
11/15/08 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfamous View Post

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums....

As far as the Baraka thread, we already have confirmation that the hype about it being DNRed and intentional EE is not true. People are taking a person's screen caps as science, making claims and saying they are irrefutable when they aren't. It is amazing on a AVSCIENCE forum that it is and has been allowed. It isn't science and should be taken with context in mind. What this then lends itself to is false, over exaggerated extremism being used to "educate" those who are learning about BD PQ and those that are believers in what some claim. The intention is good trying to attain better PQ, but some of the ideology gets lost in the extremism and can negatively impact those who are getting into BD.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 257
11/15/08 at 10:50pm
While I don't appreciate it being a bit DNR'd, whats my alternative?

1) I don't have the dvd set as I was waiting for the Bluray release
2) I won't buy the dvd set knowing it exists in Bluray (and DOES look better)
3) It's about the same amount of money.
4) I won't even touch the concept of having to buy an hd-dvd player and import this.

For the majority of people here, there is only one answer: Buy the Blu set, watch it, and be happy. Unless the people come off looking like mannequins I'm not going to waste time caring about it.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 257
11/15/08 at 10:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumlad View Post

Funny. I just bought Under Siege (pt 1) on blu-ray and while it a great transfer, one thing it didn't have was filtering. It was extremely grainy throughout and I was shocked. The transfer had other issues, but I doubt there was any filtering on that.

Just because film grain is present doesn't mean there was no filtering used even if to a slight degree. As has been said before, it's when the tool is abused or used correctly do people generally object. Kill Bill II (non-Warner title), for example, appears to have had some very mild filtering, but still shows film grain and is generally an outstanding transfer.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 257
11/15/08 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfamous View Post

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums....

As far as the Baraka thread, we already had confirmation about it being DNRed and intentional EE is not true although some are claiming otherwise. People are taking a person's screen caps as science, making claims and saying they are irrefutable when they aren't. It is amazing on a AVSCIENCE forum that it is and has been allowed. It isn't science and should be taken with context in mind.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 257
11/16/08 at 12:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfamous View Post

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums....

yes its silly to talk only about the PQ and AQ of a bluray disc in the bluray section not the "great story" section.... isnt bluray all about how good its PQ/AQ is, and how it is as good as it can be, to how the original was supposed to look....

maybe blu can overtake dvd by saying they increase the story lines by upto 6x of a standard dvd...
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 257
11/16/08 at 12:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tutelary View Post

While I don't appreciate it being a bit DNR'd, whats my alternative?

1) I don't have the dvd set as I was waiting for the Bluray release
2) I won't buy the dvd set knowing it exists in Bluray (and DOES look better)
3) It's about the same amount of money.
4) I won't even touch the concept of having to buy an hd-dvd player and import this.

For the majority of people here, there is only one answer: Buy the Blu set, watch it, and be happy. Unless the people come off looking like mannequins I'm not going to waste time caring about it.

I don't think the point of the thread is to tell people not to buy it. We're just trying to see what the best version is. In this case, people are wondering why it was filtered.

I've bought a few titles that were rated very poorly as far as HD'ness, but since I didn't already own the DVD and wanted to watch the movie again, I decided to get it anyway (though I waited for a sale). In the case of Band of Brothers, I doubt it will be re-released, and if it is, I doubt it will be a new encode.

I'll probably pick this set up because there's no way I'm going to pay the price for the HD DVD version
The question is why did they add DNR to it?
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 257
11/16/08 at 12:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbarayhick View Post

yes its silly to talk only about the PQ and AQ of a bluray disc in the bluray section not the "great story" section.... isnt bluray all about how good its PQ/AQ is, and how it is as good as it can be, to how the original was supposed to look....

maybe blu can overtake dvd by saying they increase the story lines by upto 6x of a standard dvd...

well, I already addressed that in my post....

still, people are saying this set isn't worth owning simply because it doesn't meet some PQ standard. ...I'm simply saying that's hogwash.

You expect criticism of PQ here--that's the point. but is it a killer when considering picking up this title? No way.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 257
11/16/08 at 12:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

As far as the Baraka thread, we already have confirmation that the hype about it being DNRed and intentional EE is not true.

No, Hugh, we haven't got "confirmation" of that at all
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 257
11/16/08 at 1:27am
Quote:


the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

The question is "If they already had a better encode, why did they choose to make a worse encode?" That is what is ridiculous. If they were starting from scratch and happened to land at the results they got for the BD I might say OK they must have had a reason. But that doesn't appear to be what happened. It appears that they went in and dumbed it down for no good reason.

It isn't like they didn't have enough space and needed to squeeze it down to make it fit. I have been a big advocate of BD mostly because the extra space doesn't make this crap necessary. But if we are going to constantly get worse transfers on BD than where available on HD-DVD then why are we all paying for the more expensive hardware and the generally more expensive disks. That is ridiculous.

If we are now setting the bar for whether a transfer is good or not at "Is it better than a DVD?" then we are in trouble.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 257
11/16/08 at 1:31am
Many thanks once again to Xylon for his helpful screencaps. There is clearly less grain in the BD shots - just look at the blue sky in the shot of Nixon walking across the field not to mention Sobel's face in the first shot. That said the Blu-ray set still looks pretty decent, it does have all the extras that are not on the HD-DVDs and it's at a great price. So I wouldn't not buy it if I didn't already have the HD-DVDs. But I do have the Japanese HD-DVDs and I'm glad that I still have the best presentation of BOB (minus the extras) that there is. All of which makes me a tad misty eyed for the dear departed format... I've had Blu for well over a year and half now and my collection is slowly growing (been buying all those cheap HD-DVDs like mad) but it still has to do something special for me to rival HD-DVD in my affections. This BOB set might have done it. I was toying with double dipping and selling my HD-DVD set if the BD set matched it PQ wise, but Warner just lost the sale.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 257
11/16/08 at 2:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Cordingley View Post

No, Hugh, we haven't got "confirmation" of that at all.

I think Kaiser's post pretty much puts the kibosh on any notion of filtering being present, being that he not only professes first-hand knowledge considering that transfer, and that he works in the industry. His explanation about the issues with the transfer pretty much stand up to anything the DNR crowd has yet tried to muster in that thread....

simply saying that there isn't confirmation doesn't make it so.

couldn't the same be said for BoB?
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 257
11/16/08 at 4:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfamous View Post

I think Kaiser's post pretty much puts the kibosh on any notion of filtering being present, being that he not only professes first-hand knowledge considering that transfer, and that he works in the industry. His explanation about the issues with the transfer pretty much stand up to anything the DNR crowd has yet tried to muster in that thread....

There is no confirmation for DNR for Baraka. Plenty for sharpening, though. Baraka is not a DNR case, it's a sharpening case. Which is also a filtering case. There are all kinds of digital filters, not just DNR.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 257
11/16/08 at 4:37am
In the new pics of Cpt. Winters that Xylon posted this morning, the blu-ray pic definitely looks scrubbed, but it doesn't look as waxy as the blu-ray pic of Sobel (Schwimmer), at least imho. Well, in any event, I still have my HD-DVDs, and clearly won't be selling them.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:29am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 View Post

I'd like to see some more screens from what I've read the DNR comes and goes...it seems to be substantial in these shots.

Its applied throughout in various levels.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rr6966 View Post

I've got all three versions, and I find the HD-DVD more detailed but the Blu is not bad in my opinion.

No Pattonized effect. But still all they need to do is not to "remaster" it.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:35am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsb View Post

Although I am passionately against DNR, we need some close-ups to really judge IMO. I see the DNR for sure, but I'm not seeing much difference in detail, and I don't see the waxiness. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to convince myself I don't need the $200 HD DVD set. In fact, none of the transfers are that awe-inspiring regardless. Maybe I've been watching HTWWW too much.

Xylon - What does it look like in motion?

Like I said in the first page if you haven't seen the HD DVD there is not much to complain about. Better the DVD. It's the people who has the HD DVD. In motion its a little less grainy and lacking some of the detail especially closeups.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouBarlow View Post

Could the OP explain how exactly he ensured that the test was scientifically carried out? Grain quantity varies from frame to frame and as 35mm film stock produces 24 frames a second, I'm wondering how exactly he ensured that the same frame is being compared in each shot here? Grabbing from the same time-stamp is not enough.

Detail levels look identical to me, which makes me think that the transfers are nigh on the same. Talk of 'waxiness' is plainly ridiculous though, as anyone who has actually watched the set will know.

There is no "waxiness".

So far . . . . .
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfamous View Post

plenty of grain in this set. I just went through all of them. I find it hard to believe how people can let a few minor issues of waxiness spoil this excellent series.

why do you take a handful of still shots to convince you that the entire 700 minutes are going to be crap?

actually, this is one of the grainiest BD sets I've seen.

Have you seen the HD DVD version?
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:49am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

any more shots Xylon?

thanks

-Gary

Of course

I was working on these last night then all of a sudden 2 of my servers (Vista) decided to update themselves automatically Four versions, four servers, two went down, 4 AM, and I'm dead tired.

I tell you guys this not for the faint of liver
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 257
11/16/08 at 5:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Then why did they go out of their way to apply DNR on these few scenes that Xylon has captured? They don't seem to have a greater level of grain than say other scenes.
I think they just applied a level of DNR on everything and perhaps some stuff had a 'grainer' structure to them than these particular scenes and that is why some claim the rest is fine.
I see no logical reason why these particular scenes were singled out to be scrubbed more than the rest of the series other than that everything got the DNR hammer.

Rationalize, justify it all you want, pro-DNRs, it is less than HD, and with the wonderful/painful comparisons between the HD-DVD version from Japan against the unfortunate US BR we can plainly see that once more appealing to the lowest common denominator has struck again leaving us with another causality.
Regardless of how lightly the DNR is, draw one line of tolerance it to will soon be redrawn, rinse repeat.

Best Regards
KvE

PS
Now I can put the money towards other more worthy BR releases.

What he said. I don't see why they have to suck grain on this mini-series.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 257
11/16/08 at 6:11am
In my opinion if we don't take action now Warner will keep doing this. I know a few insiders told us that Warner is getting the message but so far I have not seen any evidence of it. This release proves my point.

What about instead of wasting energy complaining here where Warner won't hear us and do anything about why not concentrate on getting our message to Warner directly. What I'm talking is actually calling and writing to Warner and tell them to stop applying DNR.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 257
11/16/08 at 8:10am
So is it worth the jump from the DVD version to the BD version? Seems like it from the screens despite the DNR and it is on my christmas list. But in many cases once things are actually in motion the differences can shrink.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 257
11/16/08 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Remastered?

Maybe it's a good thing Warner didn't "remaster" The Matrix then.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 257
11/16/08 at 8:42am
While the HD DVD seems better, I dont think the PQ difference between the 2 is that big that I can motivate myself trying to get a hold of the HD DVD instead with the price that will follow it.

I sold my DVD set yestereday so the BD will be a good enough upgrade.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 257
11/16/08 at 8:49am
So I'll ask an obvious question:

Is there a Japanese Blu-ray release of BOB planned and if so, is the U.S. BR release (with DNR) being reused (because Japan is in the same region as U.S. right?) or will they use the existing Japanese HD-DVD master because Japan is a separate market?
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 257
11/16/08 at 9:00am
I still wonder why people are amazed by this and cancel their orders. Warner has applied some form of filtering/DNR to EVERY movie they've ever released. If the HD DVD was never released no one would ever know and be happy about this. I'm sure that you will see grain reduction in every Warner title compared to a foreign version.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 257
11/16/08 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

I still wonder why people are amazed by this and cancel their orders. Warner has applied some form of filtering/DNR to EVERY movie they've ever released. If the HD DVD was never released no one would ever know and be happy about this.

I think you're right. Without the HD-DVD to compare to this is just another smoothie Warner release.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 257
11/16/08 at 9:30am
The HD DVD version, to me, looks the best. The Blu-Ray is a close second to the HD DVD. Yes there does appear to be DNR applied, but it is not as excessive as some titles we have seen in the past. If you already own the HD DVD version the Blu-Ray version seems like a waste of money to me unless you want the interactive features or lossless audio. I ended up paying $41 for BoB boxset on Blu-Ray, and that seemed like a solid price for this series. Even if there is a little DNR
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Band of Brothers DVD, HBO MPEG-2, HD DVD & Blu-ray comparison *PIX*