AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX*

post #1 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:09am
Thread Starter 

XylonHD, YouTube Channel, @XylonHD

 




Edited by Xylon - 9/17/12 at 11:04pm
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:10am
Thread Starter 


Reply
Reply
post #3 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:10am
Thread Starter 
First, go to A Fistful Of Dollars *PIX* thread to have some idea to what the h*** are we talking about

When Universal studios started releasing Blu-ray transfers that equal or surpass HD DVD transfers this year I decided to concentrate on "A" catalog titles that hasn't been "lobotomized" by excessive use of DNR tools. Thinking that waxy, smeared transfers we saw last year is just an anomaly. Well I was wrong. The worst thing is they are doing these on very popular catalog titles. When The Cowboys was released earlier no one really cared if it looks like this:



or this:



DNR dialed at 11 leaving no traces of any fine detail or film grain.

But when a movie like TGTBATU gets the same treatment the uproar is definitely justifiable. The majority of the transfer has been DNR'ed. Its just so disappointing. Even if I am the worlds biggest Blu-ray fanboy or the head prima donnas of the format including people claiming to be "insiders", I can't think of an excuse to warrant this defective product. Of course it is still amusing how they explain the "how" and the "why" when the Dark Knight, Salo or Patton was released. Its humorous and at the same time so sad. Sometimes I wonder if they even know what their talking about or are they just marketing people hired to do damage control in the forums.

Like I said on other *PIX* threads everyone is welcome to prove us wrong. We "extremist" know what we are seeing. You have seen the screenshots posted much, much earlier than I did. You have read the early AVS members reviews that actually watched them.

Then again you can always fall back on that always works for you - "It's better than DVD"


Reply
Reply
post #4 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:11am
Thread Starter 


Reply
Reply
post #5 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:11am
Thread Starter 


Reply
Reply
post #6 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:11am
Thread Starter 
BTW if you want some westerns in HD that looks natural check out The Professionals and Rio Bravo.





The PQ is not as good as the The Searchers but no distracting Pattonized™ look.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:11am
Thread Starter 
reserved for future use
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:11am
Thread Starter 
reserved for future use.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 517
5/8/09 at 6:58am
Ok, just about the opposite of FAFFOD. It's a real shame of a DNR treatment as has been pointed out by folks in the other thread.

S#%*, it really looks horrible!

Again, thanks for providing the pictures Xylon. They put all doubt to rest.

After fantastic job on The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), Young Frankenstein, The French Connection 2 (1 is a whole different matter), The Pink Panther, Raginb Bull, Never Say Never Again, I tought FOX/MGM had got it and were really on the right track.

Oh well, Vanishing Point also looks quite bad with DNR and EE, but I hopped that would be an isolated incident.

ps: again first person to comment
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 517
5/8/09 at 8:10am
What a piece of disappointing garbage. Some of those BD shots look like they can be upscaled dvd.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 517
5/8/09 at 8:39am
Ouch, that is really bad. I'm guessing that is the US BD not the German disc.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 517
5/8/09 at 9:40am
1 - Some DNR, but far less than we've seen elsewhere.

2 - Lots of extra detail - quite a lot more than I'd expect to be available.

3 - Some grain, though less than I'd have expected.

Given the age, low budget, probable poor storage conditions, and the fact it was shot on a format with only half the resolution of normal 35mm, I think that's not too bad. Not perfect, but not to bad.

What I'm really looking out for, and it's probably not possible to tell on screencaps, is how even or uneven the grain is over the 3 hours.

Steve W
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 517
5/8/09 at 9:47am
Looks like they DNR'd the DVD a couple of years ago and we didn't mind because at the time we thought they were removing EE on the earlier DVD release and making the image quality appear cleaner- but now Blu-Ray is showing us how horrible that process really is.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 517
5/8/09 at 9:56am
Looks like the Blu-ray came from the same hi-def master as the "special edition" DVD cut, because both look terribly smoothed out. Only the sky in the DVD looks noisy (as I would expect), not to be mistaken as actually more grainy. This film originally had a lot of grain and so it must have been an early decision to remove it (even in the DVD stage). Too bad, as it ruins it for me since this film was one I knew when I was young. The coarseness of the original grain would've added to the feel of the picture too. This was definately not one to be smoothed over.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 517
5/8/09 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigVid View Post

Looks like the Blu-ray came from the same hi-def master as the "special edition" DVD cut, because both look terribly smoothed out.

I'm not sure. There's pretty bad EE on the DVD that isn't there on the BD - certainly not as much.

You may have felt the excessive grain added to the look, but Techniscope was not an artistic directoral decision, but a financial one.

Steve W
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 517
5/8/09 at 10:30am
2nd screenshot, faces are wax city

This is Patton II.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 517
5/8/09 at 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

You may have felt the excessive grain added to the look, but Techniscope was not an artistic directoral decision, but a financial one.

And DNR is an artistic directoral decision?

They are not using DNR on this release because this is what Sergio Leone wanted it to look.

They are using DNR, because they think the mainstreem consumer sees grain as an artifact. And will generate less sales.

So in the end DNR is a financial decision.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 517
5/8/09 at 11:17am
Truly a rubbish transfer, especially compared to the superb Fistful restoration.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 517
5/8/09 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

I'm not sure. There's pretty bad EE on the DVD that isn't there on the BD - certainly not as much.

You may have felt the excessive grain added to the look, but Techniscope was not an artistic directoral decision, but a financial one.

Steve W

You call it excessive but i call it beautiful. The look of A Fistful Of Dollars is beautiful cinema. So now you are saying the grain on this type of film is excessive ? I thought you were anti DNR unless the film print had detiorated and needed some. ?

Many directors actually chose the look that Leone pioneered back in the sixties and you are saying it's all a finanical decision. No it's artistic.

I don't understand why you defend the use of DNR on this film.

Just say you are happy with your purchase and it's unfortunate they applied DNR but don't try and say the film needed DNR because the grain was too heavy as this film had a full and extensive restoration and looked beautiful. This was not an aged film print they used.

It no longer looks as beautiful on Blu Ray disc.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 517
5/8/09 at 11:40am
well, that definately looks like... something. but it sure ain't film
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 517
5/8/09 at 12:01pm
look Ma, no grain!
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 517
5/8/09 at 1:37pm
This transfer looks terrible. I watched Once Upon a Time in the West in 35mm last year, and it looked excellent, very crisp. And while this isn't the same film, it just looks smudgy in comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 517
5/8/09 at 3:20pm
N-noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I was waiting with baited breath for this one. While it's not generally Patton-bad (though that second shot scares me), I'm crushed that it's not fantastic. Aaaarghh.

What IS going on in the Blu-ray cap of that second pic?! There are weird little flickering pixels above their heads. It's not my monitor because the pixels move with the file. Some weird browser thing? Maybe that shot is cursed...
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 517
5/8/09 at 5:59pm
The Good, The Bad and the WTF! happened here?
Another $ saved.
Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 517
5/8/09 at 8:11pm
The first shot looked good, maybe because there's just so much going on in the way of detail. It fooled me and I thought we were in for good things... and then I saw the second shot and just about fell out of my chair.

Stupid DNR.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 517
5/8/09 at 9:57pm
The 2nd shot is pretty bad.

Brandon
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 517
5/9/09 at 1:11am
Thats awful, DNR mad! Damm, I don't think I'm looking forward to "Once Upton a Time in The West" anymore
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 517
5/9/09 at 2:24am
Ah, I think I see the problem here. You must have left the texture quality at "low" in the graphics settings. Go to the graphics menu and select whatever is the highest option.

This is the PC gaming forum, correct?
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 517
5/9/09 at 6:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

After fantastic job on The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), Young Frankenstein, The French Connection 2 (1 is a whole different matter), The Pink Panther, Raginb Bull, Never Say Never Again, I tought FOX/MGM had got it and were really on the right track.

It seems clear that the studios have never had consistent, enforced policies for transfer standards. It's just a bunch of random teams operating by their own rules.

It would be nice if people who understood this issue could be put in charge, and put an end to this disastrous DNR fad.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 517
5/9/09 at 6:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason One View Post

It seems clear that the studios have never had consistent, enforced policies for transfer standards. It's just a bunch of random teams operating by their own rules.

So true. There is just no standard or benchmark for transfer quality or what gets slapped on a disc. If only THX certified meant anything.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX*