or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Skyfall
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skyfall - Page 9

post #241 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by neveser View Post

You can add this as well...

Honest Trailers - Skyfall
That was great...thanx.biggrin.gif
post #242 of 426
Quote:
Good Lord this disc looks amazing in my home theater (like others)! Incredible in every way: some of the best contrast (night scenes, Shanghai, etc), detail, color I've seen. I loved Deakins Cinematography in the movie so it was a massive thrill to see just how gorgeously it has been rendered on the Blu-Ray.

Totally. That opening Shanghai scene felt like it was 3D. And yes I also felt that the cinematography was top notch. This movie is going to have a lot of replay value in my blu-ray collection.
post #243 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by neveser View Post

You can add this as well...

Honest Trailers - Skyfall


LOL starring Jason Bourne. Seems I wasn't the only one who thought this way.
post #244 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post

Totally. That opening Shanghai scene felt like it was 3D. And yes I also felt that the cinematography was top notch. This movie is going to have a lot of replay value in my blu-ray collection.

Not to derail the thread but I watched Sid and Nancy last night. Deakins' work is fantastic.
post #245 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Anybody from the sound mixing industry watched the BD yet? ...especially who if familiar with the cinema mix? I was alerted by a friend who is, but didn't see it in theaaters, who pointed out a number of problems with the BD mix. I thought he was just being anal, but since I have a screening event with guests tomorrow night, I checked it out. I think my friend is right.

First, the mix is really hot! That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but consider the actions sequences. The average level in the action sequences is so high that there is no dynamic range/room left for impactful events such as crashes or bangs, etc. That's not a big deal, but just means that it could have been mixed such that it is more impactful. The overall hot level of the mix creates another problem I'll get to below.

Secondly, I found the dialogue bloated in the lower mid-range throughout. At worst it makes dialogue even a bit hard to understand, and at best it is a distraction (seeming un-natural). It takes some analysis to understand why it seemed this way on my system in my room (Audyssey Pro calibrated in large room). My theory is that not only is the mix hot, but the EQ is jacked up a bit from the mid-range down for the BD release. Here is the path of my analysis. I use Dynamic EQ. As you must all know, DEQ is based on a level calibration at THX reference which is the reference for cinema mixes as well. Presuming your system calibration is reasonably accurate and the BD mix is reasonably near 0dB, Dynamic EQ can apply its effect as designed. If a mix (or non-film source) is significantly hotter than reference, then DEQ will be applying its curve too heavily for the volume level you have chosen. Of course, this would not be true if you listened with your volume control at 0dB (reference). I don't listen at 0dB, so DEQ is compounding the mid-range and down.

If this was only below 80Hz, I'd have no problem with this. But since it invades the dialogue, it is quite troublesome. The obvious alternative is to turn off Dynamic EQ. That is what I did, and it "solved" the problem. Without DEQ, Skyfall sounds like most other movies with DEQ on in my room. That is why I have the theory that they have monkyed with the EQ for the BD release.

So, I guess this is a heads-up...just in case you experience the same impression in your room.

BTW, the new Audyssey feature of DEQ offset is designed to be used with hot sources. I use -10dB of DEQ offset for music sources which run hotter than music mixes. Since the level of the Skyfall mix is so non-standard, it makes finding something (a "fix") that works rather subjective. I thought that a DEQ offset of -10dB might work, but DEQ turned off sounds more like other modern mixes to me...with DEQ on. My $.02 worth. smile.gif

Yes i noticed the mix was hot too. Why are studios doing this?
post #246 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Yes i noticed the mix was hot too. Why are studios doing this?

The loudness wars is coming to the film industry! ahhh!
post #247 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

IMO, there is way too much compression and/or limiting being done for Blu-ray (and DVD) soundtracks. It may be OK to do that for the DD soundtracks but they should leave the lossless tracks alone. The argument made for additional processing is the original mix was done for theater presentation and most home systems and TVs can not handle the range a theater can and to that I say “phooey”. Many of my old LaserDisc titles had much better soundtracks than the same title on DVD because of additional audio processing done to the DVD release.

The other thing I really dislike is taking older Dolby Stereo soundtracks and redoing them for 5.1 for disc release and NOT providing the original Dolby Stereo (a.k.a. Dolby Surround) soundtracks. In cases where both are provided I use PLIIx on the DS tracks and it sounds better than the redone 5.1 in most cases.

For me, Skyfall had a fair/good soundtrack overall, the major complaint was over processed music track. The surround effects and LFE were good/very good.

I have an old ADC RTA in the rack and at glance can see what is happening

There should be no compression with lossles audio. If some type of compression is being done, it shouldn't be called lossless. But as always, you never know truly getting.

Read this- http://www.avsforum.com/t/1333462/the-new-master-list-of-bass-in-movies-with-frequency-charts/1260#post_21031695

If that's really happening then it's not uncompressed audio. As soon as you alter the track in any way from the original master it's not lossless imo.
post #248 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnj1958 View Post

LOL starring Jason Bourne. Seems I wasn't the only one who thought this way.
In all fairness, since Bond had already been around for about 35 years when they came up with Jason Bourne, if anyone is imitating someone else its Bourne imitating Bond.
post #249 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond 007 View Post

In all fairness, since Bond had already been around for about 35 years when they came up with Jason Bourne, if anyone is imitating someone else its Bourne imitating Bond.

Well, it's no coincidence that Quantum of Solace ended up trying to mimick things that you would see in The Bourne Ultimatum, and it all fell flat on its face. Terrible editing and it was all hamhocked.
post #250 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffinmcfluffin View Post

Well, it's no coincidence that Quantum of Solace ended up trying to mimick things that you would see in The Bourne Ultimatum, and it all fell flat on its face. Terrible editing and it was all hamhocked.
I dont understand. What things are completely new and unique to Ultimatum.
post #251 of 426
Imho the Bourne films/books are completely different to the 007 books/films
post #252 of 426
The armchair directoring and criticing in this thread is hilarious.
Obviously, those who hate it seen it in theaters and are using a blu-ray release thread to comment on the movie itself, not the blu-ray release PQ/AQ.
LOL!!!
post #253 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman View Post

Obviously, those who hate it seen it in theaters and are using a blu-ray release thread to comment on the movie itself, not the blu-ray release PQ/AQ.
LOL!!!
As opposed to the approximately zero threads about new films where no one discusses the movie? confused.gif
post #254 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post

Totally. That opening Shanghai scene felt like it was 3D. And yes I also felt that the cinematography was top notch. This movie is going to have a lot of replay value in my blu-ray collection.

If not for the occasional halos and EE, I would have been much happier with the PQ.
post #255 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post

And yes I also felt that the cinematography was top notch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neveser View Post

Not to derail the thread but I watched Sid and Nancy last night. Deakins' work is fantastic.
Mr. Deakins is simply one of the absolute best there is.
Using him for Skyfall was a very wise decision...wink.gif
post #256 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

There should be no compression with lossles audio. If some type of compression is being done, it shouldn't be called lossless. But as always, you never know truly getting.

Read this- http://www.avsforum.com/t/1333462/the-new-master-list-of-bass-in-movies-with-frequency-charts/1260#post_21031695

If that's really happening then it's not uncompressed audio. As soon as you alter the track in any way from the original master it's not lossless imo.

He's talking about dynamic range compression, not data compression. Two completely different things.
post #257 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

As opposed to the approximately zero threads about new films where no one discusses the movie? confused.gif
Huh?
If you want to discuss the movie content, there's a thread for that. smile.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1213872/bond-23-skyfall/300
post #258 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by neveser View Post

Honest Trailers - Skyfall

wait...were they trying to be funny? rolleyes.gif
post #259 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman View Post

Huh?
If you want to discuss the movie content, there's a thread for that. smile.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1213872/bond-23-skyfall/300
True, but there has been a lot of bleed over and maybe that's not a bad thing.
How long can we argue the PQ/SQ of BDs before it becomes useless and simply ridiculous excercise?
Perhaps the 2 forums should be redesigned.....
post #260 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

He's talking about dynamic range compression, not data compression. Two completely different things.

Exactly right!

It appears many mixers use compressors and/or limiters in wide band mode resulting in spectral skewing. IMO, mixers should use 75μs (or at least 50μs) pre-emphasis on their compressors and limiters.
post #261 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Good Lord this disc looks amazing in my home theater (like others)! Incredible in every way: some of the best contrast (night scenes, Shanghai, etc), detail, color I've seen. I loved Deakins Cinematography in the movie so it was a massive thrill to see just how gorgeously it has been rendered on the Blu-Ray.

Agreed! I watched 2 of my favorite discs for PQ right before Skyfall (Tree of Life and Samsara) and I think Skyfall actually bested both of them overall! eek.gif Truly one of the most engaging visual experiences I have had in my HT.

Audio was excellent as well and zero complaints, but PQ was the star of the show here from my perspective.
post #262 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman View Post

Huh?
If you want to discuss the movie content, there's a thread for that. smile.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1213872/bond-23-skyfall/300
Yes. Apparently there is some sort of sentiment (whose origins utterly confound me), that the BLU-RAY SOFTWARE forum is not the place to discuss film "content", whatever that may be considered to be as something independent of other types of content, like picture quality, or whatever -- one form of content acceptable as fodder, the other not. Can you tell me where this is defined, explained and/or codified? -- I have looked for definitions here, but can't seem to find the appropriate area where AVS has laid that all out. Thanks!
post #263 of 426
Bought it on release day, but won't be able to watch it for a couple days. From the theater viewing, I remember a "sky fall!!!" music video during the opening credits that I liked. Should sound awesome on the surround. Also remember Craig running like a robot biggrin.gif.

I
post #264 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

True, but there has been a lot of bleed over and maybe that's not a bad thing.
How long can we argue the PQ/SQ of BDs before it becomes useless and simply ridiculous excercise?
Perhaps the 2 forums should be redesigned.....
Well, "redesigned" implies that they were designed in the first place. Were these subject areas ever designed by AVS somehow? Where is this design, or these definitions, presented? -- link please! I keep seeing people popping up here saying that the content of a software program which can be said to be the visual aspect (or the auditory aspect) is acceptable content to discuss here, whereas whatever content which imparts the story or other things is not the good content for talking about herein. Chances are, the better part of our sense of story comes from the way the digital bits interact with our equipment to form the sound, thereby the words, as well as creating the picture which tells the story every bit as much -- so how is the way our brains resolve the image to form a visual field specifically different than the way our brains connect a story to what that software is doing?

I think it might be one thing to limit folks to a technical discussion about how ones and zeros manipulate circuits with electricity -- this would be a "lines of code directing hardware and/or flow of electrons" kind of focus, but once you talk about any picture or sound that results, you are into a software "content" arena -- what the software is presenting in terms of content. I just don't get the distinction. When virtually anyone discusses game software -- from the highest holy engineer down to the ten year old gamer, they are talking the game -- without that in play, the conversation is limited to..what? -- fifty people in the world who can talk complex code?

But if you say these distinctions were by design friend Oink, I would just like to be linked to the area where AVS has laid out those definitions -- I've never been able to find it. I am always highly fascinated by the formation of semantic distinctions and how they are worded, so that I might begin to make sense of this...

Thanks in advance for the link!
post #265 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emaych View Post

Well, "redesigned" implies that they were designed in the first place. Were these subject areas ever designed by AVS somehow? Where is this design, or these definitions, presented? -- link please! I keep seeing people popping up here saying that the content of a software program which can be said to be the visual aspect (or the auditory aspect) is acceptable content to discuss here, whereas whatever content which imparts the story or other things is not the good content for talking about herein. Chances are, the better part of our sense of story comes from the way the digital bits interact with our equipment to form the sound, thereby the words, as well as creating the picture which tells the story every bit as much -- so how is the way our brains resolve the image to form a visual field specifically different than the way our brains connect a story to what that software is doing?

I think it might be one thing to limit folks to a technical discussion about how ones and zeros manipulate circuits with electricity -- this would be a "lines of code directing hardware and/or flow of electrons" kind of focus, but once you talk about any picture or sound that results, you are into a software "content" arena -- what the software is presenting in terms of content. I just don't get the distinction. When virtually anyone discusses game software -- from the highest holy engineer down to the ten year old gamer, they are talking the game -- without that in play, the conversation is limited to..what? -- fifty people in the world who can talk complex code?

But if you say these distinctions were by design friend Oink, I would just like to be linked to the area where AVS has laid out those definitions -- I've never been able to find it. I am always highly fascinated by the formation of semantic distinctions and how they are worded, so that I might begin to make sense of this...
PM on its way....smile.gif
post #266 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by yadfgp View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It astounds me that you don't get what I'm saying.

I know all about the moles and all that!

Bond really though that the best, safest place to take her would be out in the middle of nowhere? Surrounded by nothing with Bond AND ONLY Bond there to protect her? Luckily for them that old guy was there. Otherwise they might have really been screwed. biggrin.gif

When he went into the whole shpiel about taking her outside of the grid or whatever it was that he said, and then for them to show up later at "Skyfall", I just thought to myself, really? This is the best place to keep her? And then as the whole rest of the movie went on, I just kept thinking to myself, man she is screwed. And that's when I just kept wondering, when is she gonna say to Bond "Damnit James, what the hell were you thinking, bringing me out here like this you damned fool!" biggrin.gif

Now do you get where I'm going with this?!?! redface.gif

There had to have been a better option for her safety.

To me it all just seemed like a cheap ploy to show off some old Bond stuff like the car, and to show where Bond grew up. And also as mentioned earlier, to have Connery show up as the old guy which would have been cool if that had happened. I guess if that had actually happened I wouldn't be having such an issue with them being out there.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Bond did not take her there to protect her, he took her there ( with her approval ) as bait to bring Silva to them and only them as she felt it was her responsibility to face this and no one else should get hurt. Q laid the bread crumbs with the help of the man who would become the new "M".
post #267 of 426
Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Bond did not take her there to protect her, he took her there ( with her approval ) as bait to bring Silva to them and only them as she felt it was her responsibility to face this and no one else should get hurt. Q laid the bread crumbs with the help of the man who would become the new "M".

I actually watched it again last night, and had missed the part where she agreed willingly to do all that. She only spoke about it for a few seconds so I apologize to Josh from earlier. frown.gif

So with that in mind. I'm completely ok with the ending of the movie. Actually watching it all over again a second time I enjoyed it much more.

The flashlight bit was still really silly but I think that old guy's a bit senile.
post #268 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by yadfgp View Post

I actually watched it again last night, and had missed the part where she agreed willingly to do all that. She only spoke about it for a few seconds so I apologize to Josh from earlier. frown.gif

So with that in mind. I'm completely ok with the ending of the movie. Actually watching it all over again a second time I enjoyed it much more.

The flashlight bit was still really silly but I think that old guy's a bit senile.


Now lets work on my puzzle with the movie. Where , when how did the 65 Aston that he won in a poker game get fitted with all the gadgets from Goldfinger?
post #269 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstspyder View Post

Now lets work on my puzzle with the movie. Where , when how did the 65 Aston that he won in a poker game get fitted with all the gadgets from Goldfinger?
Excellent question. I can only assume Hollywood installed them! smile.gif
post #270 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstspyder View Post

Now lets work on my puzzle with the movie. Where , when how did the 65 Aston that he won in a poker game get fitted with all the gadgets from Goldfinger?
confused.gif

Haven't seen "Skyfall" yet (BD on pre-order), but I thought the Aston-Martin was destroyed in wreck in CR??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Skyfall