Anyone else think that Batman Begins is a REALLY underwhelming HD-DVD? - Page 2

Ooops, My mistake. I sold my copy a around 10 days a go. It was a very good release though.

~Josh

Its not an "excuse." LCDs are prone to artifacting. Different displays have different strengths and weaknesses, being aware of them helps you judge stuff with more accuracy. I didn't say that your display had some video processing issue, but given that I (and many, many others) haven't seen an artifact, certainly nothing like you described, it could be your display.

Also, its no an excuse to say that ISF calibration is a different league than popping in AVIA and eyeballing values.

Clearly you're entitled to your opinion, but this is a technical forum. When you claim swimming artifacts, or any artifacts kindly have a timestamp so others can verify this.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature...s_of_2006.html

Mr. Bracke doesn't seem to think so. IMO, BB was the definitive HD-DVD presentation and still holds that status as the best presentation so far.

Forceflow:
can you elaborate on the artifacting direct view LCDs are prone to? I own two - a 768 and a 1080p

thanks

Looks fantastic and sounds fantastic. This has got to be one of the top TrueHD tracks on HD-DVD.

I've seen most of the non-animation disks rated as tier0/tier1 in the HD-DVD software and Blu-ray software forums, and there aren't many I would rate higher than BB.

I too can see all of the above AND could not find one artifact on my 65" Mits from 8 feet away so that makes me right and you wrong.

You can't pretend to be shocked you are getting such a response when you put "REALLY" in all caps in the title.

I thought I heard that unmistakable sound of a Johnson outboard when I read your first post....

As I said, it really depends on the particular set but in general LCDs are prone to banding.

Older or larger LCDs are prone to ghosting. Older LCDs have more artifacting problems, especially due to slow refresh rates (fast motion pixellation). Some LCDs (no name brands) feature bad (the worst) or no video processing (can be fine so long as pure signal is sent) so they have jaggies and other errors.

I don't know what model the OP has, I was simply suggesting that it could be his display or perhaps something else in the chain. If he gives a timestamp we can go and verify with the plethora of displays people have.

I don't mean to imply LCDs are inferior, I want to stress again that each type has its own disadvantages and advantages.

I was also underwhelmed.
I never saw it in the theater, so in HD DVD was my first experience with it.

I would put many titles above BB in picture quality.
Kong, Aeon Flux, SeaBiscuit, Phantom of the Opera, The Mummy, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and many others.... all well above it..

Mine are the Samsung LNS3251 from '05 and the Sony Bravia KDL 46in from '06

I detect no ghosting really on film material but they don't run as smooth as my CRT HDTV for Xbox360

Yes, the banding is very very bothersome and is detectable on many titles, really taking you out of the film-like experience. It's most apparent during motion in fine textures such as that of a tweed sports jacket.

but banding isn't as bad as the black levels - granted my two sets have come a LONG way since the early days of LCD, they have almost CRT-like black levels but almost isn't good enough alot of times especially the way the blacks crush in darker scenes and I prefer my CRT's super-dark brown/maroon black to the LCD's super-dark grey blacke

Luckily for me, video scaling is very nice on both Samsung and Sony models(I've heard they use similar scalers)

AFAIK, Sony and Sammy use the same Korean company to manufacture a good deal of their LCD parts.

Black levels isn't an artifact, but yes, they are lacking no matter the LCD. You have ones that probably feature the best LCD can do (Sharp is one that does LCD well too). IMHO, shadow detail has a long way to come in terms of LCDs though.

I'm sticking with my CRT until something better rolls around. I was toying with the idea of picking up an Ampro 4600, but I may venture into digital if new, cheap 1080p models do come out.

Let me ask you, you felt BB was great. Did you notice any artifacts? Anything that underwhelmed you?

I know the title was hyped, but I think it lived up to it in many ways. The start of the movie (the garden) and all the trippy Scarecrow scenes were especially wild.

There are transfers far better but I think because it is such a dark movie it will never compete well with something with a lot of color and brighter scenes.

You guys are in dream land. The title is fantastic. Every review gives it the highest of marks. I've watched it repeatedly on my HP 1080p 65" DLP and it's the best of the best. Get a new system.

I think batman was on the soft side, a lot of people like it because I suppose its a compression accomplishment. Nice example of shadow details.

And it is well known that LCDs are not great with shadow details particularly in black areas. CRTs are still the best but my HP is superb. Great ability to bring out shadow delineation and great with blacks.

i wonder why he doesnt make a thread on the blu ray section question why koh doesnt wow him compared to the hulk or king kong?


plus the op needs a better display and for it to be isf calibrated

I was underwhelmed and am constantly confused when people refer to BB as "reference" or the ultimate HD DVD.

I find the picture is soft and lacking in detail, not just in the many dark scenes but bright ones as well.

Training Day, CoR, Kong, Constantine, Serenity (just to name a few) are much, much better as far as picture goes.

I have seen plenty of transfers that out do BB. Ive seen plenty of transfers that make BB look reference. We all have different display technologies at different sizes that all excel in different areas. I cringe when I read someone praising a title I though looked terrible on my system but I am aware its very possible it can indeed look better under different circumstances. Because of this we will always read posts expressing difference of opinion on transfers regardless how right we each think we are. The author of this thread has every right to post what he is seeing on his system and he is correct based on his system. To tell him to buy another display may make BB look better but then some of his reference titles may no longer look as good. There is no one perfect display that does everything perfect.
Dont tell someone he is wrong or buy new equipment. Just post how you perceive the transfer.

The banding issue isn't really as bad as I make it sound. And yes, you hit it on the head - the black levels are ALOT better than years before and approaching CRT quality BUT, shadow dileneation is very lacking as even the best LCDs seem to clip different gradients of blacks making darker scenes seem murky

I don't think it lived up to its hype in video quality - i'd give it a 8.5/10. The positives, it had very very good shadow detail and not a hint of EE that I could detect. But skin tones seemed too pasty and smeared much like Million Dollar Baby. I did not see this at the cinema

Aside from it being a tad to soft for such a recent release and the pastyness(excessive noise reduction emplyed?), It was a very very strong presentation

My major pet peeve is EE and if a title shows none in excess, then its automatically "very good" in my book. Unfortunately, many titles have excessive EE - especially Universal - Fear and Loathing, Spy Game and even Fearless

wow now i feal bad

well i take back waht i say about a better diplay but still get your display isf calibrated if possible to the op

I agree. To me, BB looks unacceptably soft.

I'm watching it as we speek, and see absolutly nothing wrong PQ wise. Detail is superb, depth astonishing, and amazing quality for the darkness of the movie, the accuracy of the lighting is impressive aswell,definatly nothing wrong on my display (CRT). Personally I'm not a fan of LCD's at all, a friend has a 720p 40inch Sammy panel and it's definatly what I would consider "ugly" from display perspectives. Of course it has no calibration at all and is in pretty much burn mode from his gaming settings, but it still bothers me.

I have no where near a high end setup, but I just do not see a problem, so I would assume this is situational, not underwhelmed at all here.

After watching Seabiscuit last night I think I understand why it is frequently referred to as a reference disc and why BB is getting mixed reviews. Plenty of bright, outdoor scenes and very smooth color with no detectable artificial quality. My CRT is calibrated for inky blacks with detail so BB looked great but not like the jaw dropping realism of Seabiscuit.

I tried an experiment and turned up the brightness for BB 2 clicks on a dark scene and it was not as impressive. If LCD ever gets measured contrast levels approaching CRT I think many dark films will get more love.

The problem with BB is not darkness, but the softness of the image. Seabiscuit is certainly an appropriate comparison; Seabiscuit is not soft at all.

I think some NR was applied to BB - anyone seen this in theaters? did the skins appear pasty?

Seabiscuit is indeed a very nice transfer, just saw it again two nights ago. The color saturation, amount of detail and complete lack of EE - and mostly bright outdoor scenes. A stunning and warm film-like presentation

I love this movie and I love it on HD DVD, so to answer your question...No!

That has been my speculation as well. There appears to be no grain that I can recall. I didn't see it in the theater.

It's all subjective, but alot has to do with the display.

It rocked my DC3 120" just fine

I completely agree, I've always thought Seabiscuit is, scene for scene the best looking HD title out there. As for B.B., I think it's a fine transfer and great film, but content wise it just doesn't lend itself to show off the strengths of HD, I don't see the softenss some are talking about and where there is color it's quit striking to me. The bottom line is that it's a dark movie, and it should be dark. What many here fail to to be aware of is that were all using different hardware, and we all see things differently, many people raved about how reference the PQ of MI3 was, yet to me it was just ok, nice but nothing ground breaking like some here made it out to be. Different strokes.

As for a 'darker' film, I would rate Serenity as reference. I don't yet have my hands on the UK edition but the US edition is very very nice in PQ - there is grain but it's inherent(super35)

Grain is intentional.

Directors intent. reference to the original.