AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › E.T. coming soon...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

E.T. coming soon... - Page 3

post #61 of 97
10/8/12 at 7:47am
Wonton, you might want to study up on video transfers. Raiders look soft? What exactly did you want Spielberg to do? Digitally sharpen it? The movie has received an absolute state of the art 4K scan. It looks exactly like a 35mm film. The softness you speak of is inherent in the original photography. It's a wonderful transfer in every aspect. What does too much color grading even mean?

And Jaws doesn't look great because why? Is it because someone on this forum mentioned it before? While it does have some mild DNR in order to get a consistent image throughout the movie, it too has a fantastic 4K scan. What you're seeing is exactly what was shot.

All of these releases are encoded perfectly, no artifacts, no banding, etc.

The problems that people are seeing are inherent to the original photography. It's important that one understands that before making baseless claims.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 97
10/8/12 at 7:59am
Well I trust Robert Harris very much and he had this to say:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/323941/a-few-words-about-e-t-the-extra-terrestrial-in-blu-ray
Quote:
Extremely Highly Recommended

I am really looking forward to this one as it is one of my wife's favorite movies and none of our kids have ever seen it so we will be doing a family movie night this week smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 97
10/8/12 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

Wonton, you might want to study up on video transfers. Raiders look soft? What exactly did you want Spielberg to do? Digitally sharpen it? The movie has received an absolute state of the art 4K scan. It looks exactly like a 35mm film. The softness you speak of is inherent in the original photography. It's a wonderful transfer in every aspect. What does too much color grading even mean?
And Jaws doesn't look great because why? Is it because someone on this forum mentioned it before? While it does have some mild DNR in order to get a consistent image throughout the movie, it too has a fantastic 4K scan. What you're seeing is exactly what was shot.
All of these releases are encoded perfectly, no artifacts, no banding, etc.
The problems that people are seeing are inherent to the original photography. It's important that one understands that before making baseless claims.
Just...
WoW

I don't like posting off-topic [although I've been guilty of it B4]; sooooo hopefully this is still on the general topic of this particular transfer.
"Jaws" has DNR yet no artifacts*?!?!
Spielberg says "Jaws" doesn't look like it did when he filmed it, yet color grading has zero effect too the original photography?!?!

Talk bout baseless claims!

After all that blabbering I haven't seen "ET" on Blu [hope too grab a steelbook]; did catch it on digital HD cable recently & it's still a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT movie .
[a little back on topic] However, even if this if this release is the end-all in video transfers (hope it is!!!) that doesn't change nor excuse any previous releases video quality digital abnormalities.

* if its "some mild DNR" how come we see it???
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 97
10/8/12 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WontonNoodle View Post

The Indiana Jones sequels look like crap...
Raiders is very very soft, and too much color grading in the first 10 minutes.
Jaws just doesn't.... look great.
E.T. looks fantastic though.

You forgot Jurassic Park
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 97
10/8/12 at 12:24pm
Big Ed what are you talking about? You see mild DNR because the movie has been mildly DNRed. So let me get this straight, a DNRed movie automatically has artifacts? What nonsense is this?
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 97
10/8/12 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

You see mild DNR because the movie has been mildly DNRed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

So let me get this straight, a DNRed movie automatically has artifacts? What nonsense is this?

You just answered your own question. If you can see the impact of DNR, that visual product is called an artifact.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 97
10/8/12 at 12:42pm
No, that is not what an artifact(s) is.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 97
10/8/12 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

You just answered your own question. If you can see the impact of DNR, that visual product is called an artifact.

There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 97
10/8/12 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

No, that is not what an artifact(s) is.

This explains even more.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 97
10/8/12 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

Big Ed what are you talking about? You see mild DNR because the movie has been mildly DNRed. So let me get this straight, a DNRed movie automatically has artifacts? What nonsense is this?
Ha, ha!!
It's THIS "nonsence":vvvv
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

Wonton, you might want to study up on video transfers. Raiders look soft? What exactly did you want Spielberg to do? Digitally sharpen it? The movie has received an absolute state of the art 4K scan. It looks exactly like a 35mm film. The softness you speak of is inherent in the original photography. It's a wonderful transfer in every aspect. What does too much color grading even mean?
And Jaws doesn't look great because why? Is it because someone on this forum mentioned it before? While it does have some mild DNR in order to get a consistent image throughout the movie, it too has a fantastic 4K scan. What you're seeing is exactly what was shot.
All of these releases are encoded perfectly, no artifacts, no banding, etc.
The problems that people are seeing are inherent to the original photography. It's important that one understands that before making baseless claims.
"The problems that people are seeing are inherent to the original photography" & "You see mild DNR because the movie has been mildly DNRed (sic)"
We're seen added digital artifacts yet you post people are "making baseless claims" & "that people are seeing are inherent to the original photography" which you yourself point out has been digital manipulated.
And yes, "a DNRed (sic) movie automatically has artifacts"!
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 97
10/8/12 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 97
10/9/12 at 6:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

No, that is not what an artifact(s) is.

Well, the world as we know it may beg to differ.

Video artifacts come in all shapes and sizes depending upon the methods using during the editing and conversion process: halos (edge enhancement); smeared/waxy/clumpy texture/grain (DNR); ringing, mosquito noise, macroblocking, posterization/banding, and aliasing (compression); ghosting, combing, etc. I wouldn't put crush, blowouts, or color retiming on that list, as they are not artifacts in and of themselves, but they can lead to creating artifacts. I'm sure I'm missing a few other types of artifacts and not all those artifacts are exclusive to those methods, but those are the most obvious.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 97
10/9/12 at 6:43am
Great, this idiocy spread from the Terminator thread to the E.T. thread.

Despite the fact that he's completely disingenous with his arguments and he's doing something that involves a word that will get my post deleted if I use it (even if I'm right), apparently what he's doing to antagonize people and create arguments isn't against any of the rules on the board. He's not going to get moderated for his behavior.

The only sane solution is to put him on ignore and not feed him by responding to him.

You can't argue with him because he'll never admit he's wrong and he'll just move the goalposts so he can keep baiting you into continuing to respond while he gets off on getting you worked up. It's just wasted time. Ignore him.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 97
10/9/12 at 1:16pm
anyone bought and seen E.T. yet??? sorry if this was ON topic wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 97
10/9/12 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBMAN View Post

anyone bought and seen E.T. yet??? sorry if this was ON topic wink.gif

Bought the Steelbook today, but I got two discs from Netflix that they sent me yesterday, despite the holiday. So, I haven't had a chance to watch E.T. yet.

Edit: I finally checked it out and it looks quite excellent. Lot's of detail despite a few shots where the focus was a bit off here and there. The detail becomes most obvious when you get to the scenes of the medical exams where you can read all the indicators, buttons and other items. It's also the point where you can see Peter Coyote's face which has considerably more character than the kids' or the Mom's faces and you can really see skin detail that was harder to spot before.
Edited by NetworkTV - 10/10/12 at 12:03am
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 97
10/10/12 at 9:21am
Watched last night. Transfer is perfect. Universal's best.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 97
10/10/12 at 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBMAN View Post

anyone bought and seen E.T. yet??? sorry if this was ON topic wink.gif
Ha, ha!!
Although I can't go too "perfect" (^^^), it's quite a fab home video release.
I didn't notice "1" instance of print damage & I'm '1' too see something on a release the reviewers say is "free of print damage" in the 1st three minutes.
Colors are saturated & natural (WoW).
Soundtrack (MA) quality is stunning; from the opening credit score which I don't even remember B4 left me slack-jawED.

EDweird stuff:
Clumpy grain in the starting night scenes (blotches of color more than "grain")/going too all most no grain in bright (lights) parts of the frame
[I'm totally OK w/varying grain/I credit myself w/being the 1st too point that out on the web]
Not much facial detail/don't think it's the transfer tho as fabrics have an almost reach out & touch it visceral impact
Most special features in SD
"Theatrical Trailer" isn't

If you a fan of the flick & want too watch it at home... you CAN'T do any better!
[even if you had a "film" print the cleanness (some one might say 'too' clean) & the BIG sound of the Blu are engrossing]
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 97
10/10/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Watched last night. Transfer is perfect. Universal's best.

Absolutely correct. For those nitpicking about focus, that's the film - it's always been that way and it was done on purpose for reasons that should be obvious in those shots where it occurs - the film is brilliant in that way - the lighting is so carefully done so that you don't see too much when you shouldn't see too much.

As to Ed's comments, perhaps someone can translate for me because I can't make heads or tails out of them smile.gif Something about print damage? I'd like a specific time and what I should look for because I don't think he's correct. Happy to be proven wrong. Oh, I've reread his comment (it gave me a headache doing so) and I think he's saying he didn't see any damage - it's really hard to tell what he's going on about smile.gif BTW, it's not "clumpy grain" in the night sky - it's the way the optical has always looked, not a transfer issue.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 97
10/10/12 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

The proper setting for sharpness is always 0.
Also my Oppo BDP-93 is region free.
That makes me awesome.
50 is the proper sharpness setting on some sets.
All so my Oppo 95 is region settable.
That makes me me.

biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 97
10/10/12 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Absolutely correct. For those nitpicking about focus, that's the film - it's always been that way and it was done on purpose for reasons that should be obvious in those shots where it occurs - the film is brilliant in that way - the lighting is so carefully done so that you don't see too much when you shouldn't see too much.
As to Ed's comments, perhaps someone can translate for me because I can't make heads or tails out of them smile.gif Something about print damage? I'd like a specific time and what I should look for because I don't think he's correct. Happy to be proven wrong. Oh, I've reread his comment (it gave me a headache doing so) and I think he's saying he didn't see any damage - it's really hard to tell what he's going on about smile.gif BTW, it's not "clumpy grain" in the night sky - it's the way the optical has always looked, not a transfer issue.
Yeah, the teacher walking down the aisle goes in & out & in & out of focus sooooo much I almost got dizzy!!
Quote:
I didn't notice "1" instance of print damage & I'm '1' too see something on a release the reviewers say is "free of print damage" in the 1st three minutes.
means:
"I didn't notice "1" instance of print damage".
Can you understand that?!?!
wink.gif
As statED in the post you quotED, it's "varying grain" which I am "totally OK w/ (with)".

Fun too try and nick pick this release & get almost NO where!!!
Maybe that's why you had too nick pick my post! tongue.gif
Very pleasED as well & got steelbook for under twenty too boot!! smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 97
10/10/12 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

50 is the proper sharpness setting on some sets.
All so my Oppo 95 is region settable.
That makes me me.
biggrin.gif
Yes, this can be true. I had my Panasonic TH-65PZ850U ISF calibrated and my sharpness setting was best at 49.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 97
10/10/12 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by subavision212 View Post

Yes, this can be true. I had my Panasonic TH-65PZ850U ISF calibrated and my sharpness setting was best at 49.

I've had three different display technologies (CRT, SXRD, plasma) ISF'd by Chad B - one of the top calibrators in the country - and all of them required something above zero. This could be seen just looking at sharpness patterns. The poster who made that comment earlier should be more informed.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 97
10/11/12 at 3:16am
My copy was waiting for me when I got home. I immediately copied it to the server and watched a few scenes on my calibrated Sony FW900. Excellent PQ. I can't wait to watch it on the Epson!
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 97
10/11/12 at 6:51am
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

I've had three different display technologies (CRT, SXRD, plasma) ISF'd by Chad B - one of the top calibrators in the country - and all of them required something above zero. This could be seen just looking at sharpness patterns. The poster who made that comment earlier should be more informed.
Gregg Loewen did mine and I sat with him the whole time and he showed me why it was best to set it there. Looked great to me and still does.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 97
10/12/12 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by subavision212 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Gregg Loewen did mine and I sat with him the whole time and he showed me why it was best to set it there. Looked great to me and still does.

He did my set as well. Sharpness as put way above zero. I guess it depends on the set.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 97
10/12/12 at 5:42pm
Sharpness is best wherever the TV is displaying an accurate image (ie, no sharpening applied), whether that happens to be zero or 50 on the TV scale. Anything else is introducing artifacts.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 97
10/17/12 at 10:42pm
Finally watched this BD. Spectacular transfer. And better yet: looks exactly like fans expect it to look; exactly as it's looked on all previous home video releases... no color timing surprises or changes in exposure/shadow detail. Brilliant lighting by one of my favorite cinematographers (Allen Daviau); bold use of near-silhouettes as well as bright light sources within the frame. Loved it.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 97
10/18/12 at 3:39pm
Flawless...That is all.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 97
10/18/12 at 3:43pm
Got the UK disc today, rather nice
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 97
10/29/12 at 11:29pm
Absolutely incredible. There is zero evidence of print damage. Grain is very fine and very well controlled.

It is almost too revealing, as cliched as that may sound. The optical effects stand out in sharp relief, and all of the variations of E.T., whether it's the animatronic puppet, or the little person in a suit, or E.T. on rails zinging through the bushes, are all too evident.

With the DVD, everything was just a big blurry mess so you never really noticed the limitations of the sfx; here, you can see every imperfection clearly. The scenes with optical effects don't look bad; but they don't look perfect like the other scenes.

This transfer is definitely big screen projector worthy.
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 › E.T. coming soon...