AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "The Dark Knight" PQ issues.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"The Dark Knight" PQ issues. - Page 6  

post #151 of 1074
There are scenes in this film that are clearly tier 0 IMHO. I see no issues at all with this encode and it looks exactly like it did in the theater when I saw it. What more can you ask? If there is some EE added during the IMAX process, it is on the master and should be on the encode. Sit back and enjoy the film rather than getting obsessed over minor issues with EE. This really a great looking film and it sounds even better. I can say without hesitation that 99 % of the people who purchase this title on BD will be thrilled with the picture.
post #152 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Are you sure it's not the EE causing it to look sharper ?

Yes.
post #153 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Not by me it wasn't...I considered it film like and full of detail but was told "Wait till The Dark Knight hits Blu Ray then you'll see how bad Batman Begins looks"

I guess they told me huh.

I never understood all that garbage about BB. It always looked phenomenal to me....Well, maybe the one explanation were the bit-rate ogres and spec mongers trying to say there wasn't enough bandwidth back when HD DVD was still around. Funny, how when movies were re-released with the format that allowed higher bitrate, the differences weren't there, huh?

To this day, BB is still one of my favorite high def titles. I'm not disagreeing with the reviews of DK here yet, because I haven't seen it...but after all the trash talking with BB, I'll take all the comments with a stockpile of salt.

Some people are already saying it's been "laiden" with EE, DNR, MSG, PCBs, etc....and some are saying it's top of tier 1...I guess, why should this title be any different than all the others reviewed?

Can't wait to get my copy.
post #154 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

I never understood all that garbage about BB. It always looked phenomenal to me....Well, maybe the one explanation were the bit-rate ogres and spec mongers trying to say there wasn't enough bandwidth back when HD DVD was still around. Funny, how when movies were re-released with the format that allowed higher bitrate, the differences weren't there, huh?

To this day, BB is still one of my favorite high def titles. I'm not disagreeing with the reviews of DK here yet, because I haven't seen it...but after all the trash talking with BB, I'll take all the comments with a stockpile of salt.

Some people are already saying it's been "laiden" with EE, DNR, MSG, PCBs, etc....and some are saying it's top of tier 1...I guess, why should this title be any different than all the others reviewed?

Can't wait to get my copy.

Not so funny, considering that Warner chose to port the HD DVD encode of BB to BD.
post #155 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwhip View Post

there are scenes in this film that are clearly tier 0 imho. I see no issues at all with this encode and it looks exactly like it did in the theater when i saw it. What more can you ask? If there is some ee added during the imax process, it is on the master and should be on the encode. Sit back and enjoy the film rather than getting obsessed over minor issues with ee. This really a great looking film and it sounds even better. I can say without hesitation that 99 % of the people who purchase this title on bd will be thrilled with the picture.

+1
post #156 of 1074
The good thing is for those lucky enough to get their disc earlier, you'll have the chance to complain to Mr. Nolan himself via the BD-Live chat feature
post #157 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

Not so funny, considering that Warner chose to port the HD DVD encode of BB to BD.

I didn't mean just that title, I meant in general. There are others like Transformers that got a higher bitrate encode, and people couldn't see the difference. Diminishing returns strike again.

All that's beside the point, I was just using it as an example as to why some people tried to trash BB. To this day, I still believe it's one of the better high def titles around.
post #158 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc View Post

+1

+2
post #159 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

They should have framed and protected the IMAX footage to match up with 2.39:1 Panavision ratio for the bulk of the film.

That way they could let you CHOOSE between the IMAX framing and the theatrical framing for those with scope theaters at home and nothing would look odd either way!

If you read the quote I had from American Cinematographer, they did do this for the 35mm release viz. scanned the 65mm Imax frame at 8K and then framed it for 35mm scope based on edit decisions made by the director and editor. For a true Imax presentation, the AR changed from scene to scene (the shots of HK from the air were pretty spectactular in Imax).

Presumably for a BD with 50G on it, they could put both versions on the disc or make a two disc presentation; one in scope all the way (as seen in the regular theatres) and one with AR changes, as seen in Imax theatres. Guess it was to do with cost and/or artistic intent.
post #160 of 1074
Does it change aspect ratios any way you view it?
post #161 of 1074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mel2 View Post

wanted on the other hand is my new demo disc. Universal is knocking them outta the park.

+1
post #162 of 1074
aaaand WB strikes again, with another nasty digital looking transfer of the biggest movie of 08
post #163 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchiu7 View Post

If you read the quote I had from American Cinematographer, they did do this for the 35mm release viz. scanned the 65mm Imax frame at 8K and then framed it for 35mm scope based on edit decisions made by the director and editor. For a true Imax presentation, the AR changed from scene to scene (the shots of HK from the air were pretty spectactular in Imax).

Presumably for a BD with 50G on it, they could put both versions on the disc or make a two disc presentation; one in scope all the way (as seen in the regular theatres) and one with AR changes, as seen in Imax theatres. Guess it was to do with cost and/or artistic intent.

Interesting. No surprise if it came down to cost. One would think that since the majority of people would have seen it in a non-IMAX presentation, that would be the framing they'd use.

It does open the door, though, for the future Super-Duper-Choose-Your-Ratio-Branching-Version double dip.
post #164 of 1074
Don't these studios know that TV's have a sharpness slider already?
post #165 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

aaaand WB strikes again, with another nasty digital looking transfer of the biggest movie of 08

You've seen it already?

And who here said it's nasty-looking?

Wow.
post #166 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

You've seen it already?

And who here said it's nasty-looking?

Wow.

I see the screencaps, and they tell me all I need to know.
post #167 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I see the screencaps, and they tell me all I need to know.

Some ridiculous people around here have this really absurd notion that, I don't know, actually watching a movie, and not just looking at a few screenshots, is the best way to judge the PQ of a movie.

Weird.

post #168 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

Some ridiculous people around here have this really absurd notion that, I don't know, actually watching a movie, and not just looking at a few screenshots, is the best way to judge the PQ of a movie.

Weird.


Of course not, and you can still enjoy a butchered release.

The screens always look exactly like the disk when i see them on here and then watch something.

in HD things like EE and DNR become more apparent and annoying than on regular DVD's, at least to me.
post #169 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

Of course not, and you can still enjoy a butchered release.

The screens always look exactly like the disk when i see them on here and then watch something.

in HD things like EE and DNR become more apparent and annoying than on regular DVD's, at least to me.


That's fine. But I'm going to go ahead and be really unreasonable and actually wait to watch the movie before basing my opinion of its PQ on a few screenshots.

I guess you should feel lucky that all these reviews and a few screenshots saved you the money you would have wasted on this obviously horrible release. Phew!
post #170 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

Of course not, and you can still enjoy a butchered release.

The screens always look exactly like the disk when i see them on here and then watch something.

in HD things like EE and DNR become more apparent and annoying than on regular DVD's, at least to me.

Generally to me DNR is even MORE apparent when actually watching the disc than it is in screenshots.
post #171 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

Interesting. No surprise if it came down to cost. One would think that since the majority of people would have seen it in a non-IMAX presentation, that would be the framing they'd use.

It does open the door, though, for the future Super-Duper-Choose-Your-Ratio-Branching-Version double dip.

This group is hardly representative of the general video purchasing public. I suspect if they had released a scope originated version only, then apart from the complaining about alleged EE, there would have been an equal chorus of complaints about why didn't the BD have the Imax framing in those key sequences!
post #172 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

On his forehead? Very processed looking.

None of the screenshots so far look much like the 35mm film print I saw. Maybe it's the result of whatever EE was used but the contrast seems really cranked and harsh. "Videoish". I'd actually say that Batman Begins has a more natural film-like transfer.

I concur with those who saw EE on the IMAX print. I also saw the film four times in 35mm, and there was no EE on the regular prints.
post #173 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

Generally to me DNR is even MORE apparent when actually watching the disc than it is in screenshots.

Are you speaking in generalities, or are you talking about some supposed DNR in this release?
post #174 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

Some ridiculous people around here have this really absurd notion that, I don't know, actually watching a movie, and not just looking at a few screenshots, is the best way to judge the PQ of a movie.

Weird.


They'll still look nasty and sharpened in motion. There's no good reason this can't look as good as the POTC movies, but it doesn't.

Looks like they even added a slight bit of EE to the IMAX shots for some unholy reason... the BB version looks a bit more natural to my eyes.
post #175 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

What is the dif? I can see they look slightly dif, but if anything the DK version looks better to my eyes. What exactly is wrong?

maybe the color or the lighting???? not sure
post #176 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

Are you speaking in generalities, or are you talking about some supposed DNR in this release?

I'm talking in general. Dark City is an example. I have not seen TDK yet.
post #177 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

I guess you should feel lucky that all these reviews and a few screenshots saved you the money you would have wasted on this obviously horrible release. Phew!

Look, like I said, feel free to buy and love the heck out of the movie, that's fine, and I'm glad that so many will. But, still, recognize the problems and flaws of something. Heck, even write to WB and tell them you find it inadequate. You can still love the flick even while doing so.

Pretending the people who are vocal about the flaws are nuts doesn't change anything.
post #178 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchiu7 View Post

This group is hardly representative of the general video purchasing public. I suspect if they had released a scope originated version only, then apart from the complaining about alleged EE, there would have been an equal chorus of complaints about why didn't the BD have the Imax framing in those key sequences!

Agreed 100%! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they had released the non-IMAX framing, just as many people would have screamed bloody murder that OAR(s) weren't used.

But like death and taxes, complaints about DNR and EE, perceived or otherwise, are still a given.
post #179 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILJG View Post

Agreed 100%! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they had released the non-IMAX framing, just as many people would have screamed bloody murder that OAR(s) weren't used.

But like death and taxes, complaints about DNR and EE, perceived or otherwise, are still a given.

As are responses that "It looks just fine to me. What are you complaining about? Some people are never satisfied."
post #180 of 1074
I was expecting only a top tier 1 presentation and from what I'm reading that seems to be about where it sits. I don't know why people expected Warner to have a tier 0 masterpiece...you have to rely on Universal for those kinds of things. Thank you to everyone who sent me a PM though and where to get this early. Its very appreciated as I loved this movie.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "The Dark Knight" PQ issues.