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

King Kong comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 390
The diff is subtle, but the more you look, the more you see it, I mean I hate it, but I have to admit the HD DVD grabs look better just by a tiny bit, but they do appeal more to me, I mean for example, both bursts of flames in post #4 look/have more detail IMO. Oh well, still all over this one on street date.
post #32 of 390
Its more of a Band of brothers difference then it is Pans difference.

So if you dont own a HD version of this, I see no reason not to buy it.

Of course I already own the HD DVD, and think that movie is to long already so I feel little need to rebuy this one.
post #33 of 390
The still shots look ever so slightly better on the HD-DVD encode. They just do. However, I've also seen (fewer) shots where the Blu-ray looks better. The real difference here is the existence of the extended edition of the film and an HD soundtrack.

Is it strange that I thought the film was already too long and overindulgent but I still want to see the extended edition at some point?
post #34 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Its more of a Band of brothers difference then it is Pans difference.

I wouldn't say it's even as noticeable as that. I'd say that it's more minor (in comparison to the HD-DVD) than the barely there DNR in Casino.
post #35 of 390
Definitely slighter than Band of Brothers.

As I mentioned previously, Xylon needs to post some fast-moving shots. You can see where the BD has the slight edge on those. It seems the HD DVD has the slight edge on more stationary shots. Admittingly, very minor differences either way.
post #36 of 390
Hey, Xylon, if you wanna take a break from preparing screencaps, I'm sure we'd all love a few words on your opinion.
post #37 of 390
Is this the first time the blu ray encode of anything had a higher bitrate than the HD-DVD version?
post #38 of 390
Why even re-encode the video, if they're just going to make the bitrate a hair lower and waste 10 gigs of space on the disc
post #39 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Why even re-encode the video, if they're just going to make the bitrate a hair lower and waste 10 gigs of space on the disc

They're seamlessly branching in an extended alternate cut.
post #40 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

These threads are funny, it has gotten to the point where I know exactly what each regular is going to comment.

You have nailed it!
post #41 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

reserved1

This isn't OT for now, cause there's no pics, yet!
Xylon, could you start a "Wax Museum Hall of Shame" thread.
Of coarse it will become a troller wankfest & 732 posts will be: "its good enough for me".
However, the list would be a great quick reference too overdone DNR.
BIG thanks & can't wait for this Battle Royal!
May the best Kong be King.
post #42 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rach View Post

You have nailed it!

I believe thats a different way of wording what Will Smith shouted out to Brad Pitt on the set of Mr & Mrs Smith in front of a full house of media journalists who promptly reported it the next day in the newspapers.

I always thought that was funny when i read it and even more so now considering what happened.
post #43 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

This isn't OT for now, cause there's no pics, yet!
Xylon, could you start a "Wax Museum Hall of Shame" thread.
Of coarse it will become a troller wankfest & 732 posts will be: "its good enough for me".
However, the list would be a great quick reference too overdone DNR.
BIG thanks & can't wait for this Battle Royal!
May the best Kong be King.



Awesome. General consensus for this title is DNR either doesn't exist or is so small as to be undetectable in movement, and now we already have the usual suspects claiming it belongs to a "Hall of Shame" and that anyone who disagrees is a troll.

How's "Zulu" look again?
post #44 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

I wouldn't say it's even as noticeable as that. I'd say that it's more minor (in comparison to the HD-DVD) than the barely there DNR in Casino.

When you see it in motion, it's more evident than the screencaps. As I've mentioned in previous posts, it's not Patton or Dark City but it is noticable. It's not a deal breaker in my book and was difficult for me to notice DNR once they land at Skull Island.

Overall, for $20 on Amazon, it's a worthy purchase.

Enjoy everyone!
post #45 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30XS955 User View Post

I Not that I thought the HD DVD looked that great to begin with.

Holy sh*t.

One of the all-time most lauded HD transfers "not that great to begin with?"

It's comments like these that make me feel I'm viewing a sort of la-la land
level of expectations from some on AVS....
post #46 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc View Post

When you see it in motion, it's more evident than the screencaps. As I've mentioned in previous posts, it's not Patton or Dark City but it is noticable. It's not a deal breaker in my book and was difficult for me to notice DNR once they land at Skull Island.

Overall, for $20 on Amazon, it's a worthy purchase.

Enjoy everyone!

Paul, I respect your opinion, but I am always just the opposite and dont see why this movie would be any dif (especialy considering that I dont see any obvious DNR from these shots). I have a harder time seeing DNR when actualy viewing a film in motion as I am caught up in the movie, sound, etc..., but in obvious examples of DNR from caps it is much more noticable to me. Its all good though, everyone is dif
post #47 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Paul, I respect your opinion, but I am always just the opposite and dont see why this movie would be any dif (especialy considering that I dont see any obvious DNR from these shots). I have a harder time seeing DNR when actualy viewing a film in motion as I am caught up in the movie, sound, etc..., but in obvious examples of DNR from caps it is much more noticable to me. Its all good though, everyone is dif

No worries mate. To each, his own.
post #48 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

This isn't OT for now, cause there's no pics, yet!
Xylon, could you start a "Wax Museum Hall of Shame" thread.
Of coarse it will become a troller wankfest & 732 posts will be: "its good enough for me".
However, the list would be a great quick reference too overdone DNR.
BIG thanks & can't wait for this Battle Royal!
May the best Kong be King.

Click the link in my signature and you will see we already have a excessive DNR list which is building up.

I doubt Kong would qualify.
post #49 of 390
I've viewed this last night and I think its comparable to the HD DVD version which I also have. Which one is better is really difficulty to judge because both look great to my eyes. There does seem to be slight DNR but not enough for me to say that I was overly bothered by it. The DTS-MA on the other hand is outstanding!!
post #50 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlacklow View Post

AVS: Where better than it's ever been is never good enough.

Belongs on one of those demotivational posters, if you ask me.

You know, maybe I'm just a loon, but just better than it's ever been is not good enough for me. I want it as good as it can be, especially when as best as it can be is already there and we're just chipping away at it.
post #51 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

You know, maybe I'm just a loon, but just better than it's ever been is not good enough for me. I want it as good as it can be, especially when as best as it can be is already there and we're just chipping away at it.

"Good as it can be" is not a definable state, considering we are talking about lossy, constrained digital replications of originally analog material. I don't mean to say that "best it can ever be" exists, and you just shouldn't expect it - I mean what you expect, in the terms you defined it, simply does not exist.

I do not in any way use this as an excuse for accepting unsatisfactory material, so please do not twist it that way. But a certain amount of realistic expectation and understanding is necessary to ever enjoy things of this nature.
post #52 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

But a certain amount of realistic expectation and understanding is necessary to ever enjoy things of this nature.

These days with almost every movie going through a digital intermediate, I think consistently good HD releases are pretty easy to do. Leaving a bunch of empty space on a disc when you've got a rather sub-par video bitrate just seems lazy to me.
post #53 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

These days with almost every movie going through a digital intermediate, I think consistently good HD releases are pretty easy to do. Leaving a bunch of empty space on a disc when you've got a rather sub-par video bitrate just seems lazy to me.

I did not say anything about any specific releases, and specifically said my comment was not an excuse for any lacking elements of a release. My comment was only about expecting "the best it could ever be," which is an undefinable state. But thanks for taking the bait even with my disclaimer and twisting my comments anyway.
post #54 of 390
They look virtually identical to me.
post #55 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Holy sh*t.

One of the all-time most lauded HD transfers "not that great to begin with?"

It's comments like these that make me feel I'm viewing a sort of la-la land
level of expectations from some on AVS....

I can't speak for the HD DVD, but I do remember the theatre and the HD tv presentations. This film, now video for our purposes, looked digitally processed to me. I am seeing things in all the caps that brings that look back to mind. Maybe it was the cgi in some parts, but even the shots provided that are live action looked processed.
post #56 of 390
Maybe it's just that HD DVD was really the better format.

Please don't hurt me.
post #57 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

Maybe it's just that HD DVD was really the better format.

Please don't hurt me.

<<< slowly edging towards the door...
post #58 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

Maybe it's just that HD DVD was really the better format.

Please don't hurt me.


Maybe and was. I welcome the day when we don't keep going here and it can't come soon enough.
post #59 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

these threads are funny, it has gotten to the point where i know exactly what each regular is going to comment.

+1
post #60 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

Maybe it's just that HD DVD was really the better format.

Please don't hurt me.



One year later and you're still not over the format war?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › King Kong comparison *PIX*