Gladiator Master Blu-ray Comparison and Review Thread - Page 39

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I dunno, perhaps a little bit of the 'ol "Preconceived prejudices" syndrome applies here? I would like to know how many people have actually watched the film from start to finish and what gear they watched it on. It hasnt even been released yet so most of us havent even had a chance to see it. No freeze-frames, no pausing....just watch the movie.

Originally Posted by Whiggles

A number of years back, when I first started out in the world of DVD reviewing, I used to hear the "screenshots aren't indicative of watching the disc" argument all the time. It turned out that, in most cases, the people using that argument were used to watching their DVDs on their interlaced CRT televisions, which obviously would mask a lot of the defects that were readily apparent when looking at screenshots on a computer screen. They therefore (incorrectly) assumed that their TVs were displaying the image "properly" and that computer screens were somehow "degrading" it, when it reality it was of course the other way round.

Originally Posted by Whiggles

A number of years back, when I first started out in the world of DVD reviewing, I used to hear the "screenshots aren't indicative of watching the disc" argument all the time. It turned out that, in most cases, the people using that argument were used to watching their DVDs on their interlaced CRT televisions, which obviously would mask a lot of the defects that were readily apparent when looking at screenshots on a computer screen. They therefore (incorrectly) assumed that their TVs were displaying the image "properly" and that computer screens were somehow "degrading" it, when it reality it was of course the other way round.

Nowadays, the displays we watch movies on are by and large far closer, technically speaking, to a computer screen than an old tube TV, both in terms of resolution and the fact that they are non-interlaced. As such, looking at screen captures on a computer really should now be considered an accurate way of assessing image quality. I honestly suspect that a lot of the resistance towards so-called "screenshot science" has its roots in the discrepancy between what you see on your average interlaced CRT television and your average high resolution, progressive scan computer screen.

So, you can consider me to be at least one example of a reviewer who DOES see the value in direct screen captures. I rely on them heavily with my reviews - it is, after all, a hell of a lot easier (and less open to interpretation, too) to explain to someone what a transfer looks like by providing visual examples than to describe it with words (although I always make an effort to do both).

Originally Posted by tbird8450

I've watched Baraka several times, and it's never failed to look absolutely amazing in motion to my eyes. I just watched a good chunk of it again last night after having my display calibrated, and it looked better than ever. It's demo material for anyone who comes over to check out my displays and I've yet to hear a negative peep about it.

After retreiving my jaw from the floor following my first viewing of it and discovering the thread on it here deriding it for how awful it looked, I stopped bothering to read the majority of the screencaps threads. The hyperbole gets thick to say the least.

Now, I don't expect to be thrilled with Gladiator as its problems seem far more glaring than on most titles, but I'll certainly reserve final judgement for when I've actually sat and watched it.

Originally Posted by General Kenobi

And that is exactly why this is so bad for the format... as stated earlier in this thread, the average joe will be so excited to get this home and pop it in and then be supremely let down which equals rent/buy less bluray.

Originally Posted by JBlacklow

I wish you guys would make up your minds.

Either the unwashed masses can't see or don't care about DNR/EE and lead to the supposed trend in poor releases (despite the transfers on films like Braveheart, the Godfather series, and many others), or they can magically see it on Blu-ray only and not on HD cable/sat/FIOS and will be so disappointed that they give up on ever buying anything that comes in a blue case. The two are mutually exclusive, so which is it?

Originally Posted by eric.exe

I heard it's usually something around $250,000-$500,000. Older titles that need a lot of manual work might cost more (North by Northwest cost 1 million). This information could be wrong though.

Originally Posted by eric.exe

I heard it's usually something around $250,000-$500,000. Older titles that need a lot of manual work might cost more (North by Northwest cost 1 million). This information could be wrong though.

Originally Posted by RDarrylR

Wow that's even more than I thought it would be. I guess that makes it easier to understand why studios are sometimes not willing to do it. You'd have to sell a helluva lot more copies to make up that money.

A top selling catalog Blu-ray might be in the 100k-200k units sold range these days? What's the profit on a catalog Blu-ray you think? Is $10 a reasonable amount? Using these numbers (and say 500k for the transfer) that means 50,000 units to make up the cost? So on a top seller maybe they'd be ahead but on a not so top seller could they expect to get their money back anytime soon?

These are just guesses but it has to be in the 10's of thousands of units at least to make up for that much expense doesn't it?

Originally Posted by RDarrylR

Wow that's even more than I thought it would be. I guess that makes it easier to understand why studios are sometimes not willing to do it. You'd have to sell a helluva lot more copies to make up that money.

A top selling catalog Blu-ray might be in the 100k-200k units sold range these days? What's the profit on a catalog Blu-ray you think? Is $10 a reasonable amount? Using these numbers (and say 500k for the transfer) that means 50,000 units to make up the cost? So on a top seller maybe they'd be ahead but on a not so top seller could they expect to get their money back anytime soon?

These are just guesses but it has to be in the 10's of thousands of units at least to make up for that much expense doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Thing is, though, this is a cooperative between Paramount (in the U.S.) and Universal (internationally), meaning that they could split the cost of a new transfer and would only need to move half as many copies in each respective region to make back the investment (by your numbers, 25,000 in the U.S. and 25,000 overseas...on a title as huge as GLADIATOR, I think they'd be safe in the attempt).

Originally Posted by AlexBC

It's so ilogical to believe that what's on the actual disc may differ from the screencaps, that I really don't understand where such arguments are coming from.

Originally Posted by stevestevenson

It is irrelevant, we already know they have a good transfer (the extended scenes).

Originally Posted by stevestevenson

It is irrelevant, we already know they have a good transfer (the extended scenes).

Originally Posted by Urlacher5454

So there is a entire transfer that looks as good as the extended scenes? Why in the world wouldn't they use that to begin with?

Originally Posted by lyris

I do. Uncalibrated displays. The people who think we're ridiculous to look at screen shots probably think so because they're used to seeing wildly different video on their TV screens.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Thats not the only reason. C'mon. Plenty of people using these forums have their TVs dialed in quite nicely. Dont play the "torched-out LCD" card... thats only to be played when really needed.

Originally Posted by Kram Sacul

Everyone should be at most 1.5 screen heights away. Any farther away and you're throwing resolution out the window and even garbage like Gladiator begins to look okay.

Originally Posted by Kram Sacul

Everyone should be at most 1.5 screen heights away. Any farther away and you're throwing resolution out the window and even garbage like Gladiator begins to look okay.

Originally Posted by ack_bk

Yes, but do you honestly believe that this is what most Americans are measuring by when they bring their 37-50" Vizio home from Walmart? Chances are WAF is going to win out and you will end up sitting 8-12ft away from that TV. Then factor in things like people using composite cables and the default settings from the factory, and you can see where this whole argument about DNR and EE gets completely lost on the masses.

I am not saying that the studios should cater to these types of people, but in reality, there are going to be a lot more of these types of people buying a movie on Blu-Ray than someone with a 120" screen using a calibrated 1080p projector setting 13ft away. And I would still love to take a random poll for people buying a new HDTV and a Blu-Ray player. Show them a screenshot with lots of natural grain and one with DNR and see which one they pick to look the best. I would not be at all surprised if it is the "smoother" looking picture.