or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Gladiator Master Blu-ray Comparison and Review Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1141 of 2846
I never noticed EE or DNR in Baraka (never looked for it).

But you don't even need to know about this stuff to see that Gladiator screen shots just don't look right.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #1142 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

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.

I have seen it - and I am fairly tolerant of DNR/EE.. For instance Baraka doesn't bother me at all (although of course I still feel it a shame if filtering was applied after the 8k scan). But Gladiator is certainly on the strong side - when halos stand out in motion you know it's bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggles View Post

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.

That sounds about right.. DVDs appeared better on CRTs that softened them into a big gooey mush.
post #1143 of 2846
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.
post #1144 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggles View Post

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).

I agree. I remember when The Phantom Menace DVD came out in 2001 and people were complaining about the EE. It wasn't bad at all on my 60" 4:3 480i CRT RPTV. On my calibrated 60" SXRD, it looks quite poor.
post #1145 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

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.

Well, the thing with Baraka was that it was hyped to be THE reference blu-ray, with a brand new transfer from the original 65mm negatives, and I think a lot of people were disappointed when the screecaps came out and didn't quite have the clarity of detail one might expect. I don't think Baraka looks nearly as good as it should look coming from such high resolution film, but it still looks very good and shouldn't be mentioned alongside this lump of excrement.
post #1146 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Kenobi View Post

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.

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?
post #1147 of 2846
re: Baraka

The image has a lot of depth to it and there are sharp details in a lot of scenes but it's missing that unfiltered crisp quality you see with the best titles even ones that were shot in puny 35mm and scanned in 2k. There's a lot of textures that have that artificial shiny melted wax look which is a far cry from that film look we all seek. There is also some EE/ringing but IMO the video processing is more annoying. Is it Dark City/Patton/Gladiator level waxiness? No, but it's not too far from it.
post #1148 of 2846
Tomorrow is D-day for Gladiator.

It will be interesting to see how different members of the forum view this title.

Let us have your thoughts regardless if they line up with the general consensus so far.

I knew before viewing it, that it had issues, which sometimes can make one have a different mindset before viewing.

It would have been nice to have had a top tier product right out of the gate to enhance the viewing experience along with the film. Instead...... well...... lets see what more of you think after viewing.
post #1149 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlacklow View Post

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?

There is a big difference when you've gone out and paid $$ to own a copy vs. watching it on HD cable/sat/FIOS, expectation is simply higher. As far as not caring about DNR/EE vs. motivating someone not to buy there are obvious degrees to which these "tools" can be used. If it is excessive and degrades the PQ to this extreme it will have a negative impact if it is minor the unwashed masses wont care. just my 2ยข
post #1150 of 2846
I know this may be an impossible question but how much would it set back the company to redo the transfer? I was going to buy it but I decided today that I am not going to settle for mediocrity. This disc should look damn near perfect. Anything less is an abomination.
post #1151 of 2846
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urlacher5454 View Post

I know this may be an impossible question but how much would it set back the company to redo the transfer? I was going to buy it but I decided today that I am not going to settle for mediocrity. This disc should look damn near perfect. Anything less is an abomination.

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.
post #1152 of 2846
If Forrest Gump is also as badly screwed up maybe they can get a deal on telecine costs.
post #1153 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

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.

It is irrelevant, we already know they have a good transfer (the extended scenes).
post #1154 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

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.

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?
post #1155 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR View Post

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?

no, they already transferred it properly. The only cost would be if they did a recall... who knows, maybe they would just sell out current stock and then introduce the better one.
post #1156 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR View Post

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?

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).
post #1157 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmmaker View Post

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).

Do you think they're really going to lose 50,000 in sales using the current transfer? I think that might be stretch. This may be what they considered when making the decision.

I was thinking more in general terms as well though for any catalog title. 50k (assuming that is close to the right ballpark) is a lot of extra Blu-ray units to sell on most catalog titles.
post #1158 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

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.

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.
post #1159 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevestevenson View Post

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

Do you know for certain there is a transfer of the whole movie that looks better? It isn't clear from what I've read. The extended version is only 16 minutes longer isn't it? Maybe they just re-did that part. I wonder if there are any theatrical scenes removed in the extended version as well or if it's just added scenes?
post #1160 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevestevenson View Post

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

So there is an entire transfer that looks as good as the extended scenes? Why in the world wouldn't they use that to begin with?
post #1161 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urlacher5454 View Post

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?

I think that either it doesn't exist or that it was going to be too complicated to do seemless branching of both versions using it. I suspect it's the former though.
post #1162 of 2846
It hasn't been confirmed that there is a complete transfer with the quality of the extended scenes. There is a transfer that doesn't have EE and DNR problems though but it's pretty old.
post #1163 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

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.

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.

At 8 to 12 feet away from displays in the 40 inch to 60 inch range you have to expect some of us to be less bothered by these issues. Gladiator certainly does show it more than others. I thought TDK was excellent overall and so did MANY others. Lets leave it at that.

Man, tough thread to hang out in....
post #1164 of 2846
Fair enough, being "less bothered" is one thing, but denying the validity of the screen shots (which I've been told some do) is another.
post #1165 of 2846
If you're gonna be comparing screenshots to what you see in motion should be doing so at the same distance-to-screen-width ratio as your movie-watching display.
post #1166 of 2846
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.
post #1167 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

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.

There TV may be dialed in but, there computer screens may not. I know I've spent countless hours calibrating my TV but, I could careless about doing the same thing for my PC monitor.
post #1168 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

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.

I do a lot of work in the home of Joe Six Pack. I always take a peak at peoples setups and I can tell you most folks seating arrangements are less than ideal and too far back. I would bet most people who don't visit these forums(J6P) will be fine with this release of Gladiator. It will sell just fine and we will never see another release. Sad but true.
post #1169 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

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.

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.
post #1170 of 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

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.

I hate that there is so much truth to this post. I have a friend at work that has a 40" Samsung 650 using a factory preset. We have several disagreements on PQ with several titles over the past year and it has been near impossible to reach a mutual understanding on what impact DNR and EE have on titles much less why OAR is better than an HD cable feed that has zoomed so the picture fills the screen. We do agree on some of the near flawless titles but that's usually it. He is a heavy gammer and I don't know how much if any that infects how smooth backgrounds should look.

Anyways, he did see the obvious issues with Gladiator and the beauty of Braveheart based on some screenshots but bottom line is that this is someone more interested than the average Joe, a guy that I talk to daily at work about last nights movie, sound, and PQ. If that's the case what does that say for the others?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Gladiator Master Blu-ray Comparison and Review Thread