Old news to most here... but I watched a good chunk of the 15th Anniversary edition last night, and it does indeed look quite different than the older Extended Cut BD. The screenshots in this earlier post (one of which is shown below)
give a pretty good illustration of the difference.
Originally Posted by emgesp
The older Extended Cut didn't really look awful
to me. But the gamma was obviously too low/bright on that version, which is one reason the grain was so visible, and the color looked somewhat "patchy" and poorly-dithered in some of the darker scenes. Some may think those qualities give the EC a more filmic look though.
The gamma/midtones on this newer release are considerably darker, which some may like and some may not. I try to keep my HD displays close to the Rec. 1886 2.4 spec
, and my preliminary impression is that this edition seems to be among the darker BDs I've seen so far, and maybe gettin a little muddy/murky-lookin. That's based mostly on memory though rather than rigorous comparison.
Brightening/lowering gamma is not a problem on my TV, so this newer release will almost certainly be my preference. And if you're using a display with lower gamma to begin with (e.g. 2.2), then it may look just peachy without any tweaking.
The sound is probably hands-down better on this newer version as well. Might wanna be somewhat cautious on the levels though per comments like this...
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
Watch your audio levels!!!!
The DTS intro is hazardous to your speakers, particularly the subwoofers.
And the entire track's level is way way hot!
Oh yeah, great transfer!!
Noticed some remarks about potential EE and DNR here, and may offer a few thoughts on that as well after a closer look on a 1080p display at 1:1.More example images in the screenshot thread