AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Deer Hunter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Deer Hunter

post #1 of 114
Thread Starter 
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh..._Blu-ray_/8467

March 6th 2012...can't wait. A blind buy for me.
post #2 of 114
Wow, it's FINALLY making its way to BD. I already have it on HD-DVD, but I'm curious to see how it compares.
post #3 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoChe View Post

Wow, it's FINALLY making its way to BD. I already have it on HD-DVD, but I'm curious to see how it compares.

I don't know about HD-DVD, but I bought the BD two years ago and I think it looks good.
post #4 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikke73 View Post

I don't know about HD-DVD, but I bought the BD two years ago and I think it looks good.

It looks ok, but the version released on BD in many countries by StudioCanal, has a pitch problem.
I reckon the US version will be fine, audio-wise.
post #5 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoChe View Post

Wow, it's FINALLY making its way to BD. I already have it on HD-DVD, but I'm curious to see how it compares.

If its Universal, it will be the same.

I have had it on HD DVD and never opened it.
Seeing this news, I ripped it open and put it in.
Very happy with the transfer.
Universal could do better with the extras.
post #6 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishiro View Post

It looks ok, but the version released on BD in many countries by StudioCanal, has a pitch problem.
I reckon the US version will be fine, audio-wise.

Why do you reckon it will be ok then? I have Universal release, and StudioCanal is also released by Universal. Both are region A & B.
post #7 of 114
I still say the Studiocanal version will still remain better, remember the pitch issue only affects the fake 5.1 track. The original track is lossless and has no problems.
post #8 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

I still say the Studiocanal version will still remain better, remember the pitch issue only affects the fake 5.1 track. The original track is lossless and has no problems.

Damn, you're absolutely correct. Stupid me, I hadn't even noticed that StudioCanal has lossless stereo track...
post #9 of 114
For those that know...
is the lossless a noticeable upgrade?
BIG thanks.
post #10 of 114
Screenshots from the U.S. blu-ray are up at dvdbeaver.
post #11 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Screenshots from the U.S. blu-ray are up at dvdbeaver.

Sooo..... that's a lot of noise reduction. Looks like some contrast boosting as well.

Guess that means I need to pick up the StudioCanal version and make sure I listen to the stereo track to avoid the pitch issues. Is the Optimum release on amazon.co.uk the same as the StudioCanal release in France and Germany? Trying to think of any other UK editions I want to order now.
post #12 of 114
Dammit, Universal!

I had hope for their 100 yrs celebration releases... But they just keep on dnr'ing.

Does it at least have a proper DTS-HD Ma track (with correct pitch) ? Do anyone know?
post #13 of 114
Ok, so...I've seen the Beaver grabs and, obviously Universal is a frequent passenger on the DNR train, BUT Beaver is also known for highly compressed caps that aren't always so accurate as far as representation of grain/detail, so, I dunno...maybe before throwing this release under the bus entirely we should wait for caps from a less compressed source. Caps a holic/blu-ray.com review? Could be a different/more aggressive compression method was used for the Universal shots. Just sayin.
post #14 of 114
Consider this a request for HD-DVD comparison shots.
post #15 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaline View Post

Ok, so...I've seen the Beaver grabs and, obviously Universal is a frequent passenger on the DNR train, BUT Beaver is also known for highly compressed caps that aren't always so accurate as far as representation of grain/detail, so, I dunno...maybe before throwing this release under the bus entirely we should wait for caps from a less compressed source. Caps a holic/blu-ray.com review? Could be a different/more aggressive compression method was used for the Universal shots. Just sayin.

You keep holding out hope there. The SC shots were also from Beaver and JPEG compression is going to add artifacts, not a very obvious use of DNR.
post #16 of 114
I'm just hoping this doesn't end up another situation like The Thing where the hddvd transfer looked just fine and Uni made it look worse for the bd. I don't know what the hddvd looks like, but hdd's review of it is pretty positive. That's why I'm anxious to see comparisons.
post #17 of 114
I knew that the StudioCanal edition would end up being better.
post #18 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

I'm just hoping this doesn't end up another situation like The Thing where the hddvd transfer looked just fine and Uni made it look worse for the bd. I don't know what the hddvd looks like, but hdd's review of it is pretty positive. That's why I'm anxious to see comparisons.

I believe that it will end up EXACTLY like 'The Thing' situation...
post #19 of 114
I would love to see a Xylon-style compare of the HD DVD, SC BD, and Universal BD. The HD DVD looked great. I have the SC BD, so I'm cancelling my Universal BD pre-order. I've already let To Kill a Mockingbird and All Quiet on the Western Front slide because there wasn't another/better alternative, but not this time.
post #20 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

You keep holding out hope there. The SC shots were also from Beaver and JPEG compression is going to add artifacts, not a very obvious use of DNR.

What am I holding out for, exactly? I've had the SC release a long time now. Apologies for wanting empirical evidence from a slightly more reliable source as far as caps go.
post #21 of 114
Universal gets beat pq wise by Studio Canal, they should be hanging their heads in shame over this. Anybody still claiming Universal has mended it's ways?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaline View Post

Ok, so...I've seen the Beaver grabs and, obviously Universal is a frequent passenger on the DNR train, BUT Beaver is also known for highly compressed caps that aren't always so accurate as far as representation of grain/detail, so, I dunno...maybe before throwing this release under the bus entirely we should wait for caps from a less compressed source. Caps a holic/blu-ray.com review? Could be a different/more aggressive compression method was used for the Universal shots. Just sayin.

How does that explain the canal version having more detail and film grain?
post #22 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Universal gets beat pq wise by Studio Canal, they should be hanging their heads in shame over this. Anybody still claiming Universal has mended it’s ways?



How does that explain the canal version having more detail and film grain?

Fair enough - guess I left out the part about Beaver allegedly changing their lil' proprietary screencap process like a thousand times over the years, and that I've heard rumblings their latest trick is "smoothing" images prior to compressing (for reasons I neither understand nor care to understand). Which I have no problem believing, since I've lost count the number of caps there of titles I own that show little/no grain and questionable detail when there's plenty of both on the actual disc. Issue of not just reliability but consistency as well. We don't even know the SC/Universal caps went through the same rigamarole. Not with Beaver anyway. Give me blu-ray.com/caps a holic. The former supposedly has a review going up any time now, so things will be confirmed one way or the other soon enough.
post #23 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaline View Post

Fair enough - guess I left out the part about Beaver allegedly changing their lil' proprietary screencap process like a thousand times over the years, and that I've heard rumblings their latest trick is "smoothing" images prior to compressing (for reasons I neither understand nor care to understand). Which I have no problem believing, since I've lost count the number of caps there of titles I own that show little/no grain and questionable detail when there's plenty of both on the actual disc. Issue of not just reliability but consistency as well. We don't even know the SC/Universal caps went through the same rigamarole. Not with Beaver anyway. Give me blu-ray.com/caps a holic. The former supposedly has a review going up any time now, so things will be confirmed one way or the other soon enough.

If that were true none of the recent beaver reviews would have film grain yet many do. Sure beaver sets the jpg compression too low but it does not do the absurdly high level of dnr you are writing about and yeah I/we often look at more then one site, who is saying otherwise? Did 'To DNR a Mockingbird' show up with film grain on other sites? Like hell it did, I checked.
post #24 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Sure beaver sets the jpg compression too low but it does not do the absurdly high level of dnr you are writing about

Did you miss the part about the (alleged) smoothing? Separate from compression alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

and yeah I/we often look at more then one site, who is saying otherwise?

(looks around) I dunno, who is? My point is just beaver has a rich history of being less reliable than some other sites as far as screencaps go. Are you sure you aren't just being a hyper-defensive weirdo, or something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Did 'To DNR a Mockingbird' show up with film grain on other sites? Like hell it did, I checked.

It's almost like that's an example of a disc which incidentally does contain DNR, which caps from more reliable sources proceeded to accurately reflect, or something. It's almost like that does nothing to refute the point I'm making.
post #25 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaline View Post

Did you miss the part about the (alleged) smoothing? Separate from compression alone.

Your contradicting excuses are so deep into conspiracy theory territory they are beneath addressing beyond the point I already have.
post #26 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Your contradicting excuses

Where? Do you understand what that word means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

...are so deep into conspiracy theory territory they are beneath addressing beyond the point I already have.

Yeah. That's it. They're "beneath" even addressing. lulz.
post #27 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishiro View Post

Dammit, Universal!

I had hope for their 100 yrs celebration releases... But they just keep on dnr'ing.

Does it at least have a proper DTS-HD Ma track (with correct pitch) ? Do anyone know?

Yes. But Universal's 5.1 mix isn't actually a remix, its just the original 2.0 Mix ran through Harmon Logic 7 and encoded as 5.1, thats why it's labeled as "processed surround" like Halloween II.
So, technically since the StudioCanal one actually has the lossless 2.0 mix at its correct pitch they are even as far as audio goes.
post #28 of 114
Reposting why DVDBeaver is not to be trusted: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=79375
post #29 of 114
Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but the Canal version is JPG compressed the same way and has plenty of grain and no crushed shadow detail. PNG isn't going to save you from Uniblunder and their mission to filter films down to 720p.
post #30 of 114
I'd find it hard to believe that the way they present the screen shots is going to cause the big difference you see between the SC and the UNI BDs wrt DNR.

larry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Deer Hunter