or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Watchmen - Warner (DC) vs Paramount (TC) Blu-ray comparison PIX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Watchmen - Warner (DC) vs Paramount (TC) Blu-ray comparison PIX - Page 3

post #61 of 142
Most likely 2k.

So the Paramount encode is filtered in some scenes but has better compression quality?
post #62 of 142
That's not what I see.

Nearest neighbor is not a valid upscaling method. It creates additional artifacts.

I think the Paramount release is superior in every way.
post #63 of 142
Thread Starter 
I don't know if I'd say "filtered". To me it looks like they used a different horizontal scaling than Warner, throughout the whole movie. I figure it's tougher to pick out on other shots since the VC-1 compression blurs details that may have been in Warner's master to start with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

Nearest neighbor is not a valid upscaling method. It creates additional artifacts.

I was under the impression that it simply duplicates pixels in the same way Photoshop's "zoom" function does. What artifacts does it create?
post #64 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

I think the Paramount release is superior in every way.

On PQ, yes, but maybe not on the cut itself



ps: I haven't watched the full DC from start to finish yet.
post #65 of 142
Msgohan, great job on the comparison pics here. #10 says a lot to me.

Brandon
post #66 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

Paramount's disc is the one that's 3GB short. Warner's disc is 42,729,422,944 bytes.

a BD50 is about 46GB and the source for the size of warner's disc i used says 42.73GB

so we'll just call it someone who needs to learn the difference between 1000 and 1024 putting bad information on their site and warners disc fell closer to 16GB short

so yes i take back what i said earlier they could have squeezed a bit more bitrate out of the encode in fact another 10Mbps would have only been another 13.62GB

so i'm out of apologies for warner on this one
post #67 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Msgohan, great job on the comparison pics here. #10 says a lot to me.

Number 8 is also a similar shot where the difference is very pronounced.

Check out the teeth and lips. The WB version is literally blurred once you do back and forth comparisons.
post #68 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

Number 8 is also a similar shot where the difference is very pronounced.

Check out the teeth and lips. The WB version is literally blurred once you do back and forth comparisons.

And check out the textures on the skin.
post #69 of 142
I got an advanced copy of the US release and, at the time, I posted this on the other Watchmen thread:

`I sometimes got the feeling some DNR had been applied but, even if that's the case, it did not seem obtrusive; the picture just looked a tad soft and with not much grain, but that may be an artistic choice'.

The comparison between the Warner and the Paramount encode confirms my first impression and definitely rules out the `artistic choice' option. I will probably buy the European encode of the TC when I find a used copy. I wonder how the next US and European releases will be. Many fun comparisons are in store for us!
post #70 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And check out the textures on the skin.

Sure, any close-up on the Paramount version looks much more detailed in regarding textures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey1 View Post

I wonder how the next US and European releases will be. Many fun comparisons are in store for us!

This kind of thing usually happens only when different studios/distributors handle the international rights. With the exception of FOX, most other studios always use the same encondes worldwide.

Another interesting match for Paramount vs. Warner would be Benjamin Button.

So far we have:

Paramount 3 x 0 Warner on:

Watchmen
Zodiac
Beowulf

pending: Sweeney Todd and Benjamin Button.

Sony 2 x 0 Warner on:

Terminator 3
Gothika

I bet the upcoming Sony version of T4 will also beat the WB version.

It should also be very interesting once The Island gets released by Paramount/Dreamworks. The WB is really poor IMO (filtered).
post #71 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

This kind of thing usually only happens when different studios/distributors handle the international rights. With the exception of FOX, most other studios always use the same encondes.

(filtered).

I meant the next US and European releases of Watchmen. I agree with all your comments anyway.
post #72 of 142
Sweeney Todd is the only title I think which Warner encoded at a higher bit rate than the stateside version released by Dreamworks.
post #73 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

Sure, any close-up on the Paramount version looks much more detailed in regarding textures.

So you cant see the improvments in the US version?
post #74 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

So you cant see the improvments in the US version?

Which capture?

Brandon
post #75 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Which capture?

Brandon

Nr 8

Its an advantage to the UK in terms of the lips, but if you look at the pores, its more defined on the US version.
post #76 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Nr 8

Its an advantage to the UK in terms of the lips, but if you look at the pores, its more defined on the US version.

Frame 8: UK version is overall superior to US one. Look at whole frame from some distance- not into specific parts.


Andrew
post #77 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_HD View Post

UK version is overall superior to US one. Look at whole frame from some distance- not into specific parts.

Thats very subjective, but I wouldnt call it superior when it certainly miss detail on other areas. Sure it may be that it looks better in motion when everything is brought into the equation. But basicly any lossy encodes sacrifice something. The question is can we really see it in motion.


Remember when there were 2 versions (3 actually) encodes of flags of our fathers. And in one frame people find a single compression artifact one one of them, and made a big fuzz about it.

When I watched the movie and tried to spot that artifact, I had no chance to move my eye to that area before that entire scene was over.

There is a limit on how much information the eyes can pick up.
post #78 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Thats very subjective, but I wouldnt call it superior when it certainly miss detail on other areas. Sure it may be that it looks better in motion when everything is brought into the equation. But basicly any lossy encodes sacrifice something. The question is can we really see it in motion.


Remember when there were 2 versions (3 actually) encodes of flags of our fathers. And in one frame people find a single compression artifact one one of them, and made a big fuzz about it.

When I watched the movie and tried to spot that artifact, I had no chance to move my eye to that area before that entire scene was over.

There is a limit on how much information the eyes can pick up.

Yes- motion is another story, but if all frames are better (in still) than movie will also look better in the motion

This frame looks better in still- at least for me. Much better preserved grain, way better contrast and also overall details (look at the righ side of the face- way better on the UK version- left side slightly better on the US).


Andrew
post #79 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Sweeney Todd is the only title I think which Warner encoded at a higher bit rate than the stateside version released by Dreamworks.

I think the UK Sweeney Todd looks superior to the US one. The film grain is defined better on the UK, where it disappears in the US one.
post #80 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Nr 8

Its an advantage to the UK in terms of the lips, but if you look at the pores, its more defined on the US version.

To me, in that shot, the UK version is superior in every way. The pores you mention are much better resolved on the UK version.
post #81 of 142
Thread Starter 
200% nearest neighbour zoom from the image you're discussing. Which one looks better?

post #82 of 142
The one with the detail.
post #83 of 142
Thread Starter 
Would that be the one on the right?

Left or right, make your choice... live or die. (I was watching the Saw II commentary yesterday)
post #84 of 142
Yes, the unfiltered one on the right.
post #85 of 142
I would say the left, but that mostly because the other look unatural because of the 2x nearest neighbour upsampling. The right get to sharp edges because of it.
post #86 of 142
Here's a sampler of some of the previous pix under the HFV scope:





LL
LL
post #87 of 142



LL
LL
post #88 of 142



LL
LL
post #89 of 142
Here is a comparison that comes from a special Hanky_cut edition of the movie that I keep in my safe.




LL
LL
post #90 of 142
Nice job Mr. Hanky. I was wondering when you'd show up.

In those last set of pics that image on the bottom is IMO a marked improvement over the one above it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Watchmen - Warner (DC) vs Paramount (TC) Blu-ray comparison PIX