Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 36

I was talking about the look of the elements on Home formats.

Anyway, LUCAS wrote that HAHAHAHAHA. Who could have guessed? One of the most awful writers of any generation possible writes the new Indy and it sucks so much donkey that I don't know if I have enough stables for all the donkey. I seriously hate this guy, in an artistic way, with a passion that knows no bounds.

If the guys that did Blade Runner did the Star Wars stuff I guarantee you fans would accept both versions lovingly.

It's sad really, how money can convince you that you actually have talent with writing.
Edited by khronikos - 9/22/12 at 5:13am

And as long as Lucas is heavily involved with the story for Indy 5, I have serious reservations...

Then allow me to reply with my post from another forum:

"I really don't like this argument when it comes to Blu-ray quality. You could say that it looks the best it ever has (on home video) about every first time Blu-ray release, thanks to the higher resolution and bitrate there must be some improvement over the DVD, no matter how many mistakes and issues there are. Even the first Gladiator Blu-ray was overall an improvement over the DVD.

If we say that as a long as a Blu-ray is some improvement over the DVD, it is fine and we shouldn't complain about its issues, then there is really no point in discussing the quality at all. Because what this argument means is basically Blu-ray = better than it ever looked = be happy with it. Therefore be happy with any Blu-ray."

Yeah, but some movies deserve the complaints. Gladiator, Gangs of New York, Patton are all movies that could have been noticeably better if they had been properly handheld. Guess what, Gladiator and Gangs were re-released n Blu-Ray and look much better. Patton is getting re-released and the word is that it is the way it should have been released with all the fine detail intact. I don't mind people complaining about the Bond issues if they are worth complaining about. I would prefer to know the issues upfront. I am not a huge fan of any of the Brosnan movies, but I was pretty unhappy with the pink push in the whites with the YOLT screencaps. Very disspointing, but I am not canceling and I will just take the good with the bad. I would love to see MGM address the issues, but it aint happening anytime soon.

received my copy yesterday...havn't watched any of the movies yet but the packaging is a lot better then I thought it was going to be...the pics don't do it justice...I love Digibooks and although this is not up to par with some of the best ones like the Jaws Best Buy exclusive, is pretty good...the production photos are pretty cool...I wanted to see more pages...even the cover art is growing on me

I haven't seen Last Crusade yet but I watched Temple of Doom last night and the aliasing/stair-stepping there is definitely not normal.

You should realize that other people might not necessarily share your opinions.
Raiders looks superb, minor niggles aside. The other two have their share of problems.

Where did you see it? I didn't notice any at all.

There was none on my set-up.

It's most prominent in the credits but it can be seen at different points in the film, particularly in slowly moving high-contrast areas. I noticed in in Willie's white shirt while she was walking in the village close the the beginning of the film. Sometimes in closeups of faces too. Note I am watching on a 100 inch screen, seating distance about 8 feet. Regardless if it's noticeable on on smaller setups it shouldn't be there. There's something screwy with how this master was scaled for bluray.

Other than that it looked pretty good but not great. It doesn't look as natural as Raiders (not talking about color, that's a separate discussion), the grain is not as sharply defined and sometimes takes on a bit of a noisy look. But like I said, it looks pretty good. If the wierd scaling issue wasn't there I'd definitely be happier with it.

"There was none" and "I didn't see any" are two different things. Describe your setup. And your seating distance.

you can also add The Fifth Element to that list...original Blu-ray was horrible...remastered version is much improved

About 6 feet away from a 106 inch screen, projected 1080p / 24fps with an Epson 6500ub. I didn't see any in the credits of Temple of Doom, and I was looking. Funny I thought Temple looked more natural than Raiders, more like watching an actual film print.The aliasing in the credits of Last Crusade is about as bad as I've ever seen.

Please don't make me take a picture and upload, man. Look again. You don't see the stair-stepping there?

Look at these caps from bluray.com

http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/6666_11_1080p.jpg

http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/6666_14_1080p.jpg

http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/6666_21_1080p.jpg

http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/6666_28_1080p.jpg
Edited by Strevlac - 9/22/12 at 3:53pm

How visible is it in motion?

Is this a trick question?

How visible it is depends on the person watching. It appears many on the forums are blind as a bat so I can only speak for myself. I saw it and it bothered me.

What is certain is that it is a transfer issue. These are not normal pixel edges in micro-details. It is a scaling issue and it shouldn't be there.

I meant to say that I wish people would stop using the phrase "It looks better than it ever did" when it comes to Blu-ray. Especially the reviewers. Its information value is zero (it's like saying that the sun will rise tomorrow) and it's most often being used to excuse any issues the Blu-ray has. So of course it is right to complain and demand fixes.

Well, at least Douglas Slocombe did. Unless he made it look worse than what he considered the best. And I also don't think that many would consider limiting the color palette and lowering the contrast an improvement.

But I know that what is considered better or improvement is really subjective and I don't take anyone their opinion. It was only a reaction to many claims that the Blu-ray has improved colors and I only tried to inform people. I guess I could have said it better.

So it's entirely possible that when someone says they didn't see it, they could actually be telling the truth. If you can see it, and it bothers you, then take it back and send Paramount a nasty letter. But don't go telling everyone else that they're blind or stupid.

Who cares what "many people would consider"? Many people would not consider pushing a movie strongly towards a certain color "an improvement" and yet DPs do it a lot (YES, even in the 80s). Many people wouldn't consider shooting a film with soft lenses, diffusion, or grainy film stocks "an improvement" over sharp, clean footage and yet it's done for various aeshetic reasons. The goal of the cinematographers is not necessarily to capture the most vibrant, pretty footage they can, but to carry through the visual design of the film. The intended look is often not the look of the "raw" negative. And sometimes video transfers ignore that (keep in mind that these DVD-era technicians were mastering transfers for television, not digital cinema).
Edited by 42041 - 9/22/12 at 7:09pm

I watched Raiders today expecting to have some issues with the picture quality after reading so many negative comments in here. But...

It was fantastic! I haven't seen it in years and don't have the colors burned to my memory. I thought it looked and sounded amazing. I got sucked right in and had a terrific time re-visiting a classic. I feel badly for those that can't serm to do that. This is such a wonderful movie, I hope eventually those that have issues with it get past it enough to have some fun.

It's sooooo good!

How about you stuff a sock in it. And I didn't tell anyone they are stupid, although it's entirely possible.

Sadly, for some, it's not about enjoying a film with a great HD transfer but about analylitical dissection of every frame and scene for scientific discussion.
For them, it's no longer about enjoyment of a movie but scientific data discussion.
I guess that's why this website is called AVS.

I noticed no stair stepping on "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", is it possible that some players render the encode with errors?

I didn't see it, and I don't think those captures are representative of what I saw. Perhaps if I jacked up the sharpness of my projector it would look like that, but I keep my sharpness controls pretty subdued. I was thoroughly pleased with the presentation, and I have 20/20 vision, I am not blind as a bat. Also, I stare at video for a living so I have a fairly discerning eye...I'm not saying you're a liar. I am just reporting what I saw. I saw NO stair stepping on the opening credits and never once during the film was I distracted by aliasing.

My sharpness is set at 0 which on the Epson is also defined as "standard." Contrast and brightness set at 0. Lamp running in eco mode. 0% overscan. Keystone turned off. LCD alignment has been adjusted manually and is dead-on.

So I dunno how you can't see it in the credits. I'll take your word for it but be assured it is there and it shouldn't be.

what player and what settings on it?

You're nothing if not predictable. This is a discussion board, as I recall.. discussions have multiple sides, and there are more opinions than yours.

/ignore

In the days of HD-DVD, I believe there was a stair scene in Mission Impossible that produced aliasing for some players, but not the Toshiba XE1 (or equivalent), due to the operation of an excellent Video Processor within the player.

I think we need to be careful, in mentioning what we see on OUR equipment, that it isn't the equipment that is somehow improving the presentation, just as the Toshiba XE1 did with a particular HD-DVD.

When it comes to observation, everything is relative.