AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Elizabeth & Elizabeth: TGA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elizabeth & Elizabeth: TGA - Page 2

post #31 of 59
5/1/10 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorthodt View Post

There is a total disconnect between the review and what the screenshots actually show.

I'd wait for a review from any other source first, personally. Just like I don't trust reviews from Nintendo Power or the Official Xbox magazine. I'll try and do a comparison today/tomorrow with my HD/BD copies.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 59
5/1/10 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD View Post

I'd wait for a review from any other source first, personally. Just like I don't trust reviews from Nintendo Power or the Official Xbox magazine. I'll try and do a comparison today/tomorrow with my HD/BD copies.

I've actually watched both of them myself. The first movie is almost on par with Gladiator in terms of scrubbing and general softness. Extremely disappointing. The sequel looks infinitely better, but of course it's squandered on the lesser of the two films.

I just thought it was funny how the bluray.com reviewer sang the video's praises and then posted screenshots that completely contradicted everything he said.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 59
5/1/10 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorthodt View Post

I've actually watched both of them myself. The first movie is almost on par with Gladiator in terms of scrubbing and general softness. Extremely disappointing. The sequel looks infinitely better, but of course it's squandered on the lesser of the two films.

I just thought it was funny how the bluray.com reviewer sang the video's praises and then posted screenshots that completely contradicted everything he said.

Is it on par with the HD DVD (Elizabeth)?
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 59
5/1/10 at 5:08pm
Haven't seen the HD-DVD, so I couldn't attest to that.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 59
5/1/10 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD View Post

Is it on par with the HD DVD (Elizabeth)?

From what I could tell the blu-ray is identical video wise with the HD-DVD (yes I checked back to back and am not going by memory). It has the same issues (i.e. the priests beard being clumpy).
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 59
5/1/10 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

From what I could tell the blu-ray is identical video wise with the HD-DVD (yes I checked back to back and am not going by memory). It has the same issues (i.e. the priests beard being clumpy).

That's good news...at least its not like Apollo 13.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 59
5/1/10 at 7:38pm
I'm not sure what to make of the first Elizabeth film... The bd.com review is glowing, but the pictures shown within are fairly mediocre. But then the pics posted on the last page of this thread are downright terrible - huge splotches, and not a spec of fine detail. What is with the disconnect between the two sets of pics, and the general disconnect between the glowing review and either set of pics?

Further confusing things is the bd.com review of Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The video score is the same as the first film - but the text discusses that, while faithful to what the film is supposed to look like, the picture is in general drabber due to less colorful design, a series of unusual filters, and poor CGI implementation. But then the pictures look great! I mean, not "tier 0" or whatever they call it here, but I can see a lot of fine detail and small amounts of (non-splotchy) grain, and there is no obvious digital tampering that I can pick out from a quick glance. It looks worlds better than either set of Elizabeth 1 screengrabs I've seen, and the pictures themselves (from a BD quality, as well as a set design and general aesthetic standpoint) look good enough to make me interested in the film whereas previously I was not.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 59
5/2/10 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

I'm not sure what to make of the first Elizabeth film... The bd.com review is glowing, but the pictures shown within are fairly mediocre. But then the pics posted on the last page of this thread are downright terrible - huge splotches, and not a spec of fine detail. What is with the disconnect between the two sets of pics, and the general disconnect between the glowing review and either set of pics?

Further confusing things is the bd.com review of Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The video score is the same as the first film - but the text discusses that, while faithful to what the film is supposed to look like, the picture is in general drabber due to less colorful design, a series of unusual filters, and poor CGI implementation. But then the pictures look great! I mean, not "tier 0" or whatever they call it here, but I can see a lot of fine detail and small amounts of (non-splotchy) grain, and there is no obvious digital tampering that I can pick out from a quick glance. It looks worlds better than either set of Elizabeth 1 screengrabs I've seen, and the pictures themselves (from a BD quality, as well as a set design and general aesthetic standpoint) look good enough to make me interested in the film whereas previously I was not.

To be honest, that's a good question. With a quick and dirty comparison between my shot of Fiennes and Blu-ray.com's shot, it seems like the contrast in mine is slightly boosted (although the frames are not exactly the same). That being said, I've left Media player classic's settings at their default and made sure that the denoise function in my video card control panel was set to off.

For full transparency, here is my method (although I am admittedly no screenshot wunderkind like eric.exe or Xylon):
1. Run MPC HC and Anydvd
2. Find the movie file on the blu-ray and start it up
3. Find a frame in the movie, press pause, expand to full screen and press the "print screen" button on my keyboard.
4. Open MSpaint and press "ctrl +V"
5. Save as a PNG file.

If anyone sees a problem with this method let me know.

*EDIT*:
It seems that the stars weren't aligned properly when I took those screenshots as I've gone back and I get the same results that blu-ray.com did. As proof here's a comparison between one of my original screenshots and a new (correct version). Again, ny apologies for the inaccuracies of the earlier shots:
New:

Old:
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 59
5/3/10 at 12:32pm
I was looking forward to this. Horrible disappointment.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 59
5/3/10 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

That being said, I've left Media player classic's settings at their default and made sure that the denoise function in my video card control panel was set to off.

For full transparency, here is my method (although I am admittedly no screenshot wunderkind like eric.exe or Xylon):
1. Run MPC HC and Anydvd
2. Find the movie file on the blu-ray and start it up
3. Find a frame in the movie, press pause, expand to full screen and press the "print screen" button on my keyboard.
4. Open MSpaint and press "ctrl +V"
5. Save as a PNG file.

If anyone sees a problem with this method let me know.

Why aren't you using "File | Save Image..." (or Alt+I)? I'd like to think that would cut out any issues with print screen, and it shouldn't matter whether you're playing it at actual size or smaller (since MPC HC would be outputting the frame, I'd assume, not the resized output).

IIRC there may be issues with colorspace as well that "Save Image..." doesn't address (I'd hope it did, but, like you, I am not a bona fide screen shot expert).

Also, for sake of compression artifacts, be sure to select PNG as the output format, not JPEG (you could choose to open the PNG in Adobe Photoshop and save it at the best possible setting for JPEG, that should produce better results than simply selecting JPEG from MPC HC; feel free to compare though, I may be wrong).

As an aside, it'd be insanely helpful if a guide were written for how to get accurate frame grabs off of BD. I've never understood the secretive nature of this on here; I'm sure it's not insanely hard, and yet only a few people seem to have taken the time to work out how to do it.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 59
5/4/10 at 1:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BsRoz View Post

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Elizab...y-Review/9786/

So the blurry, low-res, DNR'd mess gets a 4.5/5 video score, and the perfect encode straight from the DI gets 4.0/5. Right. And they say screenshots are misleading.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 59
5/4/10 at 1:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Nice oil paintings.

Stills are wrong. Phew. I knew my HD-DVD did not have this look. Glad to see the BD does neither.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 59
5/4/10 at 4:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

*EDIT*:
It seems that the stars weren't aligned properly when I took those screenshots as I've gone back and I get the same results that blu-ray.com did. As proof here's a comparison between one of my original screenshots and a new (correct version). Again, ny apologies for the inaccuracies of the earlier shots:
New:

Old:

No problem. But this does reinforce why I only rarely look at screen shots. They can be extremely misleading and have been in many cases. I enjoyed the BD transfer of Elizabeth very much. Sorry you guys can't.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 59
5/4/10 at 5:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

I knew my HD-DVD did not have this look. Glad to see the BD does neither.

Agreed. I knew it couldn't look nearly that bad if it is similar to the HD DVD.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 59
5/4/10 at 8:27am
Please delete all inaccurate screens/posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

*EDIT*:
It seems that the stars weren't aligned properly when I took those screenshots as I've gone back and I get the same results that blu-ray.com did. As proof here's a comparison between one of my original screenshots and a new (correct version). Again, ny apologies for the inaccuracies of the earlier shots:
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 59
5/5/10 at 1:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysam View Post

No problem. But this does reinforce why I only rarely look at screen shots. They can be extremely misleading and have been in many cases. I enjoyed the BD transfer of Elizabeth very much. Sorry you guys can't.

It has EE issues. Apart from that it's ok. And stills are very valuable. Just get them from the usual suspects (Xylon...) that know how to do them without additional processing. These are reliable and very helpful.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 59
5/11/10 at 12:10pm
Robert Harris "loves" Elizabeth on BD:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...y#post_3689946

Looks like I have to watch it and compare to the HD-DVD once my split screen system is up and running.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 59
5/11/10 at 12:17pm
For anyone who doesn't take the time to read the linked post, "love" = "This horrific Blu-ray should be put out of its misery." Ouch, indeed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Robert Harris "loves" Elizabeth on BD:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...y#post_3689946

Looks like I have to watch it and compare to the HD-DVD once my split screen system is up and running.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 59
5/11/10 at 4:54pm
I thought the AV was fairly good on these films.
I spent so much time being dazzled by the costumes, props, and locations in HD that nothing grabbed me as a serious problem.

The first film is much more satisfying story-wise than the 2nd.
Some of the character portrayal of a middle-aged Elizabeth in the sequel pining for Sir Walter Raleigh (C. Owens) has little basis in fact.

Elizabeth had fnck-buddies, but everything was done very discreet.
Nonetheless, the visuals can be serious eye-candy for the history buff.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 59
5/11/10 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Robert Harris "loves" Elizabeth on BD:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...y#post_3689946

Looks like I have to watch it and compare to the HD-DVD once my split screen system is up and running.

Unfortunately some posters there have a misconception about the HD DVD's quality, both versions look 99.99% identical.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 59
5/12/10 at 5:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

I'm not sure what to make of the first Elizabeth film... The bd.com review is glowing, but the pictures shown within are fairly mediocre. ....

In his review of Spartacus the reviewer says he is using a 46" LCD:

("On a 46" LCD flatscreen, I found the DNR to be relatively minimal by modern (often hyperbolic) standards," -- under "Video" section)
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sparta...-Review/10166/

Unless sitting extremely close it would be hard to assess PQ, incl. DNR issues, on such a TV. I think it could be done for a static image.

I would think that due to motion blur issues on LCD it would be virtually impossible accurately to assess PQ of a moving image, no matter what the view distance.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 59
5/12/10 at 5:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Robert Harris "loves" Elizabeth on BD:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...y#post_3689946

Looks like I have to watch it and compare to the HD-DVD once my split screen system is up and running.

I read his comments. They are so vitrolic and immoderate they sound like they were written by a common-or-garden internet crank. Has his account been spoofed?
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 59
5/12/10 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt73 View Post

I read his comments. They are so vitrolic and immoderate they sound like they were written by a common-or-garden internet crank. Has his account been spoofed?

No, a typical "review" for him.
When he got started in the biz, he was a good source.
However, over the years he has become....uh...a little odd, with lots of anger issues.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 59
5/14/10 at 12:27am
I was going to get the UK discs: can we safely assume or does anyone know the UK and US versions are identical video encodes or have the same extras?
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 59
5/18/10 at 10:53am
I apologize if I missed it, but has it been definitively established whether or not transfer used on the HD DVD is the same one used on the Blu-ray Disc for Elizabeth? If the transfer is the same was there any tweaking done to the BD not done to the HD DVD?
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 59
5/18/10 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette View Post

I apologize if I missed it, but has it been definitively established whether or not transfer used on the HD DVD is the same one used on the Blu-ray Disc for Elizabeth? If the transfer is the same was there any tweaking done to the BD not done to the HD DVD?

They look identical to me.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 59
5/18/10 at 12:59pm
They look identical to me, too. And I definitely noticed a difference between The Thing, the Mummy films and U-571 on BD vs. HD-DVD.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 59
12/24/12 at 11:24am
I hate to bump such an old thread, but can someone confirm that the black levels in Elizabeth: The Golden Age are completely wrong? The entire movie looks like it's displayed on a crummy LCD on my KURO.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 59
12/27/12 at 5:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalith View Post

I hate to bump such an old thread, but can someone confirm that the black levels in Elizabeth: The Golden Age are completely wrong? The entire movie looks like it's displayed on a crummy LCD on my KURO.

Yes, it looks the same here. It looks washed out on my calibrated Kuro.
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 › Elizabeth & Elizabeth: TGA