King Kong comparison *PIX* - Page 13

Originally Posted by bimbamboom

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.

Originally Posted by 30XS955 User

BD is clearly, clearly superior in the above shot.

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

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

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.

Originally Posted by TomT99

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

Originally Posted by Xylon

Well not all the time.

Originally Posted by Murilo

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.

Originally Posted by lgans316

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.

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

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.

Originally Posted by Murilo 

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.

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder 


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.

Originally Posted by TomT99 


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!

Originally Posted by jdryyz 

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.

Originally Posted by Partyslammer 

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.

Originally Posted by wuther 

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..

Originally Posted by wuther 

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.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya 

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).