AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Indiana Jones Trilogy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 27

post #781 of 1228
9/15/12 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that:

Call BS on what...? LMAO...

YAWN...
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #782 of 1228
9/15/12 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suffolk112000 View Post

Call BS on what...? LMAO...
YAWN...
I for one have seen the discs, and while I cannot be detailed till the UK release my thoughts are well known, and I am comparing to HDTV and 35mm NOT DVD as most reviewers have.
Reply
Reply
post #783 of 1228
9/15/12 at 3:21pm
Mike i compare them to the wowow HDTV Versions.
Indy 2 and 3 are much better because of better encoding.

Indy 1 looks much better to me with the new colors. But its a matter of taste with that one.
I dislike only the opening of the movie. The rest is (for me) way better.
Reply
Reply
post #784 of 1228
9/15/12 at 3:22pm
Taste is it, I dislike the orange flags and the whole opening
Reply
Reply
post #785 of 1228
9/15/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suffolk112000 View Post

Thanks for the reveiw link eNoize. smile.gif
Well, according to this review in High Def Digest (HDD),
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6631/complete_indiana_jones.html#Section3
… the overall rating of these movies gets 5 ½ out of 6 stars. Doesn’t sound too terrible to me. Below are summary excerpts taken from the last paragraph of each movies review. In a nutshell, it appears they pretty much did the best they could with the condition of each movie print.
Raiders of the Lost Ark:
The swastika flags in the second half of the movie, in particular, are more of an orange than the intense red we'd normally expect. The image is also terrifically detailed with distinct lines and textures in clothing, buildings and the faces of the cast, especially in close-up. Several sequences, however, appear quite blurry and soft, but that's due to age, film stock, and photography. In the end, 'Raiders' looks fantastic! (Video Rating: 4/5).
The Temple of Doom:
Contrast and brightness are terrifically well-balanced with deep, accurate blacks and great visibility of background info. Colors are cleanly rendered with primaries looking particularly vibrant in the last few minutes. (Video Rating: 4/5).
The Last Crusade:
Colors are bright and animated while blacks are often inky rich and penetrating, save for a couple poorly-lit interiors. Shadow details are plainly visible in the darkest portions, and the overall image has an appreciable cinematic appeal with good dimensionality. (Video Rating: 4.5/5).
The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
Contrast and brightness are exceptionally well-balanced with crisp whites and rich black levels, providing the image with great dimensionality and an appreciable cinematic appeal. Definition is fairly sharp and highly detailed, but the finer lines in background objects tend to look a bit blurry, likely due to the original photography. It's an excellent video nonetheless. (Video Rating: 4.5/5).

How can anyone take reviews like this seriously? The reviewer loses all credibility when he states ""appear quite blurry and soft, but that's due to age" - no. Age does not cause blurry and soft. Diffusion filters cause occasional blurry and soft, a camera being slightly out of focus causes blurry and soft, bad printing can occasionally cause blurry and soft. Age? Never.
Reply
Reply
post #786 of 1228
9/15/12 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

How can anyone take reviews like this seriously? The reviewer loses all credibility when he states ""appear quite blurry and soft, but that's due to age" - no. Age does not cause blurry and soft. Diffusion filters cause occasional blurry and soft, a camera being slightly out of focus causes blurry and soft, bad printing can occasionally cause blurry and soft. Age? Never.

Well we'll have to be careful when they review Bond 50. Unfortunately no one other than Roger Moore and various other people who are traveling across the UK with the only copy available. MGM and Fox are really keeping this under lock and key
Reply
Reply
post #787 of 1228
9/15/12 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

How can anyone take reviews like this seriously? The reviewer loses all credibility when he states ""appear quite blurry and soft, but that's due to age" - no. Age does not cause blurry and soft. Diffusion filters cause occasional blurry and soft, a camera being slightly out of focus causes blurry and soft, bad printing can occasionally cause blurry and soft. Age? Never.
Well, you're certainly not likely to find an optical in a 2012 production. Reviewers can say some dumb stuff but that's reasonable I think.
Reply
Reply
post #788 of 1228
9/15/12 at 5:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Well, you're certainly not likely to find an optical in a 2012 production. Reviewers can say some dumb stuff but that's reasonable I think.

The opticals were DNR'd so that would not matter I think he is referring to the many focus issues in Raiders, it is not a very well shot film in places
Reply
Reply
post #789 of 1228
9/15/12 at 5:10pm
Ha well this is funny, blu-ray.com's review - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Indiana-Jones-The-Complete-Adventures-Blu-ray/3956/#Review

PQ:

The Last Crusade (1989)
Score: 5/5
Quote:
Just as The Last Crusade might be the best movie of the bunch, its 1080p video transfer may be the finest in the collection...

The image is solidified by a steady layer of grain that puts the finishing touches on one of the best-looking Blu-ray releases ever, catalogue or otherwise.



*waits for the flaming to begin*
Reply
Reply
post #790 of 1228
9/15/12 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

How can anyone take reviews like this seriously? The reviewer loses all credibility when he states ""appear quite blurry and soft, but that's due to age" - no. Age does not cause blurry and soft. Diffusion filters cause occasional blurry and soft, a camera being slightly out of focus causes blurry and soft, bad printing can occasionally cause blurry and soft. Age? Never.
I refer to "age" rather often when I'm talking about very old prints as well, but you have to understand there are two "types" of "age". With the first, the physical age of the film, you are correct.. its getting older will not affect sharpness as such. Age as in, the year the film was shot, is very much an issue. Thirty years ago, they never dreamed we'd be able to extract as much information from a negative as we can. To put it simply, they didn't shoot the films for Blu-ray release. Slightly-off focus was "okay" because it looked like all the other shots. It didn't have to be pixel-perfect because.. "What's a pixel?"

Nowadays, filmmakers play much closer attention to the fine detailing of shots only because they can actually see the fine detailing. Spielberg never saw any of this thirty years ago.

So just because someone says that "it's soft because it's old", doesn't necessarily mean they're talking about the physical age of the celluloid, as opposed to the mindset of the cinematographer based on the time in which he/she lived and filmed.
Reply
Reply
post #791 of 1228
9/15/12 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

I refer to "age" rather often when I'm talking about very old prints as well, but you have to understand there are two "types" of "age". With the first, the physical age of the film, you are correct.. its getting older will not affect sharpness as such. Age as in, the year the film was shot, is very much an issue. Thirty years ago, they never dreamed we'd be able to extract as much information from a negative as we can. To put it simply, they didn't shoot the films for Blu-ray release. Slightly-off focus was "okay" because it looked like all the other shots. It didn't have to be pixel-perfect because.. "What's a pixel?"
Nowadays, filmmakers play much closer attention to the fine detailing of shots only because they can actually see the fine detailing. Spielberg never saw any of this thirty years ago.
So just because someone says that "it's soft because it's old", doesn't necessarily mean they're talking about the physical age of the celluloid, as opposed to the mindset of the cinematographer based on the time in which he/she lived and filmed.

I understand what you're saying, but don't agree with it, at least as that particular reviewer is using the term age.
Reply
Reply
post #792 of 1228
9/15/12 at 7:49pm
Yeah, I have no idea which he was referring to, but he did mention film stock and photography, which are probably the only actual causes of the softness. I wonder how HDD rates picture when the issues are in the source and not the transfer?

I'll probably end up picking this set up, just because I don't actually own any recent versions of these films at all, save the fourth one. I don't imagine we'll be getting any better versions for foreseeable future, anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #793 of 1228
9/15/12 at 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suffolk112000 View Post

Call BS on what...? LMAO...
YAWN...
The guy is a troll and will eventually draw the attention of the mods.wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #794 of 1228
9/15/12 at 11:21pm
Now that our own Mr. Potts' review is up and predominately positive, I wonder if the fussing will quiet down or if screenshot pseudo-scientists around here who haven't even seen the releases will start to flame Ralph too. rolleyes.gif
* All due respect to those who HAVE actually viewed the discs. *
Reply
Reply
post #795 of 1228
9/16/12 at 3:22am
I've seen the Raiders of the Lost Ark Bluray. Video quality is ok for an older movie, although I've certainly seen better. Some scenes are very grainy ( special effects shots like when the car goes off the cliff). There are also 2 or 3 spots where it goes blurry for just a second or 2 in a normal shot. Kinda odd.
Reply
Reply
post #796 of 1228
9/16/12 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Ha well this is funny, blu-ray.com's review - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Indiana-Jones-The-Complete-Adventures-Blu-ray/3956/#Review
PQ:
The Last Crusade (1989)
Score: 5/5
*waits for the flaming to begin*

Reviews lolol
Reply
Reply
post #797 of 1228
9/16/12 at 4:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eNoize View Post

Here's a screengrab of the scene everyone showed some concern over. Review already up at HDD. smile.gif
raiders.jpg
Looks like you might have forgotten to turn off the noise reduction and/or processing in the video card drivers before taking those screenshots (I made the same mistake not too long ago.) Also there are chroma upsampling errors.

Shame about the sharpening/aliasing on the older transfers. I think I may wait until Raiders is available separately.
Reply
Reply
post #798 of 1228
9/16/12 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eNoize View Post

Here's a screengrab of the scene everyone showed some concern over. Review already up at HDD. smile.gif
raiders.jpg


Still concerned here, my original comment I got chewed out over stands
Reply
Reply
post #799 of 1228
9/16/12 at 7:13am
Temple is the weakest looker of the four, but it's still pretty impressive. The sharpening does have a damaging effect on wider shots, but they're brief. Halos are so small you can barely make them out, while the edgy quality can remain. It feels more digital than it probably should, but tinkering in terms of color timing is non-existent as far as I can tell.

http://www.doblu.com/2012/09/16/indiana-jones-and-the-temple-of-doom-review/
Reply
Reply
post #800 of 1228
9/16/12 at 7:35am
They only changed Raiders
Reply
Reply
post #801 of 1228
9/16/12 at 8:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The guy is a troll and will eventually draw the attention of the mods.wink.gif

Hahahah... LMAO.

Troll... really...?

I CHALLENGE YOU to report my posts from this thread. I've done nothing but point out that it seems there are a lot of people reviewing the video of these Blu Ray versions without having seen them first hand. Those are the people that should be reported to the mods. Are you one of those members...?
But alas… in a few days, there will be more credibility on this forum because the movies will then actually be out on Blu Ray.
Reply
Reply
post #802 of 1228
9/16/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxCatz View Post

Now that our own Mr. Potts' review is up and predominately positive, I wonder if the fussing will quiet down or if screenshot pseudo-scientists around here who haven't even seen the releases will start to flame Ralph too. rolleyes.gif
* All due respect to those who HAVE actually viewed the discs. *

+1 for this entire post...! cool.gifcool.gif
Reply
Reply
post #803 of 1228
9/16/12 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Without nitpicking on this and other internet forums we would still be getting crap like The Longest Day and the first Gladiator BD and we wouldn't have a re-done BD of Patton to look forward to.

Except those cited examples contained appalling inexcusable errors that affected the entirety of those films.
In (hesitant) defense of Suffolk, that is not picking "nits."
Edited by SaxCatz - 9/16/12 at 8:46am
Reply
Reply
post #804 of 1228
9/16/12 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

lol, sure... the sort of people who always complain about "nitpicking" were just as happy with that trash.
As far as I'm concerned, whining about complaining/nitpicking on HT forums (while offering no insight on why the complaints are wrong) is a long way to say "I have no idea what I'm talking about". Anyone who cares or knows a thing about how movies look should realize just how many home video releases are shockingly inept (in fact, ineptitude is the norm for catalog transfers).

To further my comment above, I agree that the level of ineptitude typically on display in home video releases these days is sickening.
For that reason, I have no problem with folks wanting to "nitpick" each and every release.
What I DO take issue with is the over-the-top reaction of many here when the do find a "nit" to pick. A "nit" here- not a shocking error that compromises the entire film like the aforementioned examples- results in shouts for recalls and/or boycotts and has members tearing at each others' throats like feral dogs. I feel that the reaction should be in balance with the enormity (or lack thereof) of the defect.
Reply
Reply
post #805 of 1228
9/16/12 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Without nitpicking on this and other internet forums we would still be getting crap like The Longest Day and the first Gladiator BD and we wouldn't have a re-done BD of Patton to look forward to.

Just had to add:
By that same token, nitpicking the original Predator BD got us Predator: Ultimate Wax Mannequin Hunter Edition.eek.gifsmile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #806 of 1228
9/16/12 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by paku View Post

Looks like you might have forgotten to turn off the noise reduction and/or processing in the video card drivers before taking those screenshots (I made the same mistake not too long ago.) Also there are chroma upsampling errors.
Shame about the sharpening/aliasing on the older transfers. I think I may wait until Raiders is available separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Still concerned here, my original comment I got chewed out over stands


Nope, all processing in the video card are off. Those are direct pics without adding anything or taking anything away. And Mike, I understand what you mean: this release is not the perfection fans were hoping for, especially coming from a new restoration and 4K scan. It looks good for what it is, but I prefer my swastika flags a bright, vivid red as they are supposed to be, not the fiery orange we actually see in motion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

The opticals were DNR'd so that would not matter I think he is referring to the many focus issues in Raiders, it is not a very well shot film in places


That's precisely what is meant by the review. Personally, I think it important to consider the cinematography and director intent along with how well an individual title compares to other BDs of movies from the same general period.
Reply
Reply
post #807 of 1228
9/16/12 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by suffolk112000 View Post

Hahahah... LMAO.
Troll... really...?
I CHALLENGE YOU to report my posts from this thread. I've done nothing but point out that it seems there are a lot of people reviewing the video of these Blu Ray versions without having seen them first hand. Those are the people that should be reported to the mods. Are you one of those members...?
But alas… in a few days, there will be more credibility on this forum because the movies will then actually be out on Blu Ray.

He's talking about me. His feelings are hurt because I occassionally call him out on his complete ignorance of films and how they should look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxCatz View Post

Except those cited examples contained appalling inexcusable errors that affected the entirety of those films.
In (hesitant) defense of Suffolk, that is not picking "nits."

My comment was directed at suffolk112000's assertion that we should just quit complaining and buy movies and enjoy them. He's changed his tune slightly now. First it's quit your bitching, now all of a sudden "some" bitching is ok, just not the bitching in this thread. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the color timing changes because I have a terrible memory for color, but I think the comments are interesting and I like reading people's honest opinions. I think that's a big difference from "just buy it and shut the hell up" which is what this suffolk guy was essentially saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxCatz View Post

Just had to add:
By that same token, nitpicking the original Predator BD got us Predator: Ultimate Wax Mannequin Hunter Edition.eek.gifsmile.gif

Well, those nitpickers were wrong obviously.
Reply
Reply
post #808 of 1228
9/16/12 at 9:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by talon95 View Post

I've seen the Raiders of the Lost Ark Bluray. Video quality is ok for an older movie, although I've certainly seen better. Some scenes are very grainy ( special effects shots like when the car goes off the cliff). There are also 2 or 3 spots where it goes blurry for just a second or 2 in a normal shot. Kinda odd.

If that's what the film actually looks like, would you consider that a flaw in the transfer?
Reply
Reply
post #809 of 1228
9/16/12 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suffolk112000 View Post

Hahahah... LMAO.
Troll... really...?
I CHALLENGE YOU to report my posts from this thread. I've done nothing but point out that it seems there are a lot of people reviewing the video of these Blu Ray versions without having seen them first hand. Those are the people that should be reported to the mods. Are you one of those members...?
But alas… in a few days, there will be more credibility on this forum because the movies will then actually be out on Blu Ray.
Ummm, you didn't read post closely....look at the quote below.

And FWIW, in all the years I have been here, I have NEVER once reported ANYONE for ANYTHING to the Mods....real men simply don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

He's talking about me.

Quote:
His feelings are hurt because I occassionally call him out on his complete ignorance of films and how they should look.
I tried to warn ya, but obviously, it didn't take.rolleyes.gif

OK, the game's afoot....
Shall we begin a battle of words or will you run....again?
Reply
Reply
post #810 of 1228
9/16/12 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

He's talking about me. His feelings are hurt because I occassionally call him out on his complete ignorance of films and how they should look.
My comment was directed at suffolk112000's assertion that we should just quit complaining and buy movies and enjoy them. He's changed his tune slightly now. First it's quit your bitching, now all of a sudden "some" bitching is ok, just not the bitching in this thread. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the color timing changes because I have a terrible memory for color, but I think the comments are interesting and I like reading people's honest opinions. I think that's a big difference from "just buy it and shut the hell up" which is what this suffolk guy was essentially saying.
Well, those nitpickers were wrong obviously.

Those in the know tried to warn everyone, and it was not the "nitpickers" who see flaws it was the cheap seats who say "it is the best it has ever looked" about every transfer.
Reply
Reply
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 › Indiana Jones Trilogy