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 13

post #361 of 390
I prefer the Director's cut. Both those extended dinosaur scenes (the charging dino and rafting down the river) are homages to the 1933 Kong. The charging dino scene really sets the tone for future events and gives you a nice jump as well.
post #362 of 390
I prefer the director's cut too. It provides better continuity and additional insight into the motivation of Carl Denham (Jack Black's character).
post #363 of 390
Thread Starter 
post #364 of 390
The above look pretty identical to me, at least as far as the light shining through Ms. Watts dress.

LOL, Hey a guy has to choose some part of the picture to closely inspect
post #365 of 390
Nope. The Blu-ray has more observable compression artifacts. I mean, we shouldn't be seeing these after the HD DVD has been out for so long.
post #366 of 390
I have a question regarding the King Kong blu-ray. I played the disc on my Sony BDP-300 player. I went to make some popcorn and when I came back there was a Universal logo being displayed. It looked like some type of screen saver. But when I pressed play on the remote nothing happened. I even tried pressing play on the player itself. I ended up having to hold down the power button to turn the player off. I then powered up and fast forwarded to the place I had left. Has anyone else experienced the Universal screen? What is it? Thanks in advance.
post #367 of 390
Push "enter" and it should go away. It's just a screensaver.
post #368 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimbamboom View Post

I have a question regarding the King Kong blu-ray. I played the disc on my Sony BDP-300 player. I went to make some popcorn and when I came back there was a Universal logo being displayed. It looked like some type of screen saver. But when I pressed play on the remote nothing happened. I even tried pressing play on the player itself. I ended up having to hold down the power button to turn the player off. I then powered up and fast forwarded to the place I had left. Has anyone else experienced the Universal screen? What is it? Thanks in advance.

Yep, Universal screen saver. All of their HD DVD's had it as well.
post #369 of 390
Thread Starter 


post #370 of 390
BD is clearly, clearly superior in the above shot.

But who cranked up the DNR on the close-ups?
post #371 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30XS955 User View Post

BD is clearly, clearly superior in the above shot.

But who cranked up the DNR on the close-ups?

I have the Blu Ray and i have watched it....I have never seen the HD DVD edition.

All i can say is i felt the opening scenes before they reach the island exhibited some nice fine film grain and a higher level of detail and i felt that from around the island onwards the level of detail dipped very slightly and the grain structure was noticeably smoother and i didn't have to go up close to see this as it was very obvious at least when watching on a projection setup and large screen it is obvious to me.

The image quality was still high though and acceptable but i felt they could have probably fine tuned this and kept the fine film grain more intact for a more detailed and superior image.

Just my opinion upon viewing it and i know others will disagree with what i am saying but that's opinions for you.
post #372 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

The image quality was still high though and acceptable but i felt they could have probably fine tuned this and kept the fine film grain more intact for a more detailed and superior image.

Just my opinion upon viewing it and i know others will disagree with what i am saying but that's opinions for you.

No disagreement here. This is the same feeling you will get upon viewing Walk The Line and Band of Brothers.
post #373 of 390
So Kong looks sharper on Blu-Ray during fast moving shots, where on HDDVD he looks sharper in still shots?
post #374 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomT99 View Post

So Kong looks sharper on Blu-Ray during fast moving shots, where on HDDVD he looks sharper in still shots?

Very slightly so, yes. However, while watching the movie you won't be able to tell the difference.
post #375 of 390
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomT99 View Post

So Kong looks sharper on Blu-Ray during fast moving shots, where on HDDVD he looks sharper in still shots?

Well not all the time.
post #376 of 390
I agree with the general conclusion about the disc. Having watched hd dvd alot, i picked up the blue ray, the sound definately was a big upgrade, i heard things I never noticed before on hd dvd.

The blue ray generally looks better with the cgi it seems, and motion. While for some reason there is less grain and dnr seems to be done when there are facial close ups.

Overall it would have been perfect if they didnt do some DNR on closeups and left the grain, i did notice a few scenes with close ups seemed to have a bit less detail and a bit less sharp then hd dvd. But it still looks great, and cgi and motion scenes look better on blue then hd dvd.

I still think this belongs bottem tier 0, if they didnt do the dnr for some scenes with people, and closeups i would say its belongs near the top.

The saturation is also toned down a bit but that didnt really bother me.
post #377 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Well not all the time.

Which specifically?
post #378 of 390
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomT99 View Post

Which specifically?

Its pretty much the same.
post #379 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo View Post

The blue ray generally looks better with the cgi it seems, and motion. While for some reason there is less grain and dnr seems to be done when there are facial close ups.

DNR is not applied on all close up shots as I saw a mild layer of grain even after arriving in Skull Island. For instance, the scene where Watts jumps and dances like a Monkey in front of Kong contains many close-up shots of hers covered by a layer of grain.
post #380 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

DNR is not applied on all close up shots as I saw a mild layer of grain even after arriving in Skull Island. For instance, the scene where Watts jumps and dances like a Monkey in front of Kong contains many close-up shots of hers covered by a layer of grain.

Because most of the shoots is not live action footage.

In many screencaps here, the only thing that is live is Naomi herself. (You can se a slight hint of bluescreen edge.

Thats why Kong so seemingless fits in the enviroment.
post #381 of 390
I don't totally understand this - what is DNR and which transfer (Blu or HD-DVD) suffers from its use or absence?
post #382 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Because most of the shoots is not live action footage.

In many screencaps here, the only thing that is live is Naomi herself. (You can se a slight hint of bluescreen edge.

Thats why Kong so seemingless fits in the enviroment.

Understood. Due to extra resolution we also get to understand the gamut of CGI usage which can either look breathtaking or too fake. I wonder how this looked in theaters.
post #383 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo View Post

I agree with the general conclusion about the disc. Having watched hd dvd alot, i picked up the blue ray, the sound definately was a big upgrade, i heard things I never noticed before on hd dvd.


The blue ray generally looks better with the cgi it seems, and motion. While for some reason there is less grain and dnr seems to be done when there are facial close ups.


Overall it would have been perfect if they didnt do some DNR on closeups and left the grain, i did notice a few scenes with close ups seemed to have a bit less detail and a bit less sharp then hd dvd. But it still looks great, and cgi and motion scenes look better on blue then hd dvd.


I still think this belongs bottem tier 0, if they didnt do the dnr for some scenes with people, and closeups i would say its belongs near the top.


The saturation is also toned down a bit but that didnt really bother me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post


I have the Blu Ray and i have watched it....I have never seen the HD DVD edition.


All i can say is i felt the opening scenes before they reach the island exhibited some nice fine film grain and a higher level of detail and i felt that from around the island onwards the level of detail dipped very slightly and the grain structure was noticeably smoother and i didn't have to go up close to see this as it was very obvious at least when watching on a projection setup and large screen it is obvious to me.


The image quality was still high though and acceptable but i felt they could have probably fine tuned this and kept the fine film grain more intact for a more detailed and superior image.


Just my opinion upon viewing it and i know others will disagree with what i am saying but that's opinions for you.

Sorry to bump an old thread, I am considering selling my Toshiba HD-A35 that I have never opened, but want to make sure that King Kong (2005) on Blu-Ray looks just as good as the HD-DVD. I know the HD-DVD was highly praised and as this is one of my favorite titles, esp for HD image quality, I wanted to make sure I would have the same pq on the Blu-Ray.

It seems there is quite a wide range of opinions in here. Has the general consensus changed at all or has a newly encoded Blu-Ray been released that fixed any problems? If not, I gather that for facial close-ups HD-DVD wins, and for CGI and action Blu-Ray looks better. Is this true? It is worth keeping the player if it is significantly better on HD-DVD. Thanks alot!
post #384 of 390
It looks every bit as good , if not better. One of the few Universal titles that wasn't mucked up with the release on BD. Helps that it wasn't a catalog title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomT99 View Post


Sorry to bump an old thread, I am considering selling my Toshiba HD-A35 that I have never opened, but want to make sure that King Kong (2005) on Blu-Ray looks just as good as the HD-DVD. I know the HD-DVD was highly praised and as this is one of my favorite titles, esp for HD image quality, I wanted to make sure I would have the same pq on the Blu-Ray.

It seems there is quite a wide range of opinions in here. Has the general consensus changed at all or has a newly encoded Blu-Ray been released that fixed any problems? If not, I gather that for facial close-ups HD-DVD wins, and for CGI and action Blu-Ray looks better. Is this true? It is worth keeping the player if it is significantly better on HD-DVD. Thanks alot!
post #385 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdryyz View Post

It looks every bit as good , if not better. One of the few Universal titles that wasn't mucked up with the release on BD. Helps that it wasn't a catalog title.

Agreed. It was one of the best looking and sounding blu-rays at the time and still holds up very well, a/v-wise. Also, it has both the theatrical and extended cuts which I don't believe the HD-DVD had. Regarding some complaints about excessive DNR, I distinctly recall noticing the same "look" especially on character's faces from time to time when I saw it during it's original theatrical run.
post #386 of 390
Yes the mere fact it is on Blu-ray makes it superior ignore the evidence the pq is inferior (slightly) to the HD-DVD. As for only catalog titles are a Universal problem, just look at Burn After Reading which has so much sharping it makes everybody look like they have advance aging skin disease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Agreed. It was one of the best looking and sounding blu-rays at the time and still holds up very well, a/v-wise. Also, it has both the theatrical and extended cuts which I don't believe the HD-DVD had. Regarding some complaints about excessive DNR, I distinctly recall noticing the same "look" especially on character's faces from time to time when I saw it during it's original theatrical run.

Yeah that ranks up there with those that claimed LOTR really looked like Both BDs in theater.
post #387 of 390
I watched KK recently on BD and wasn't impressed at all. It might have been reference at the time of release, but the low bitrate chokes it.

Would like to see the theatrical cut released on its own, with a new AVC encoding.
post #388 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Yes the mere fact it is on Blu-ray makes it superior ignore the evidence the pq is inferior (slightly) to the HD-DVD. As for only catalog titles are a Universal problem, just look at Burn After Reading which has so much sharping it makes everybody look like they have advance aging skin disease..
Huh? The BD has slightly better compression and is otherwise essentially identical.
As for Burn After Reading, with DIs all that stuff is fair game. The blu-ray is presumably a direct HD port of the digital master.
post #389 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Yes the mere fact it is on Blu-ray makes it superior ignore the evidence the pq is inferior (slightly) to the HD-DVD. As for only catalog titles are a Universal problem, just look at Burn After Reading which has so much sharping it makes everybody look like they have advance aging skin disease.
Yeah that ranks up there with those that claimed LOTR really looked like Both BDs in theater.
What evidence?
post #390 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Personally from the current crop of shots it appears to be compression artifacts that make the BR look a tad soft in some instances and have blotchy blocking.


In this case the encode on the HD-DVD seems a tad better and more coherent with the finer high frequency detail. Perhaps in this case the average bitrate was not sufficient to consistently provide a more 'transparent' PQ on the BR.


Frankly some of the softness may solely be due to compression issues and not necessarily DNR/EE.


I am curious what additional caps will reveal on whether these initial shots are isolated instances rather than the over all rule of the whole encode.


Now what is up with the contrast difference? Right now I prefer the slightly darker HD-DVD, but that is just me.


I enjoy this film from time to time so I'll have to give it a rental before purchase but if and when I do it seems not to be as bitter a pill as some other flicks.


Best Regards

KvE


Keep up the good work Xylon! Many, thank you.


Now, crosses fingers for, Pitch Black, Riddick, and Bounre(s).
Do you think there are better blacks?
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*