The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion - Page 375

Transformers

I was very impressed with this BD. Unbelievable detail from start to finish, great contrast, plenty of "pop", lots of depth. Very vibrant colors. The only thing that holds it back from tier 0 are a few inconsistent scenes. A couple dark scenes in the neighborhood have too much noise. It's rather jarring because some cuts within the same scenes will look perfect, and then suddenly after a cut you'll get a different looking image. It's not that bad at all, but it's enough to hold it back from tier 0. I have to say that if you love sharpness and detail this is one of the best I've seen.

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0

Panasonic 42PX80U, 6 feet

This statement describes precisely what I mean when I use the term "3D pop." I just like the shortcut of using 5 letters, albeit still having to hit the shift key. It's still one of the qualities that impresses me in HD. I think one day 3D is how we will view movies (and I don't mean with goofy glasses or through R2-D2's scope).

At this time, I still feel the same way regarding titles such as Kill Bills, Apocalypto, etc. As a full movie, they hold their own in Tier 1. In regards to I, Robot, the CGI backdrop does not look fake like King Kong's (e.g. futuristic Chicago, rows of robots). The Pixar titles are in context. That is, animated titles with animated backdrops.

Australia: Recommendation tier 1.0


Sony A3000 60 in@ 7.5 ft from PS3 thru HDMI

Beverly Hills Chihauhua

Very fine grain apparent, halos noted in a number of scenes.

Chihuahua is a talking dog movie lit and shot to look bright and pretty. Contrast is very often on the hot side which tends to bleach detail from lighter colored objects, landscapes, buildings, etc.

Film maker achieves an interesting look. Even though contrast is turned up on whites, color timing has been tweaked to retain saturation. The result is a pumped contrast look in which picture is very bright without looking washed out and mostly without crushing blacks.

Picture is also consistently sharp. However, some of that perceived sharpness may be due to some processing as I noted ringing on a number of edges starting with the very first shot of a man in tuxedo encircled with a halo.

Humans are in many scenes and in Chihuahuah, human faces are generally very smooth, single strands of eyebrow, head hair, or stubble are difficult to discern. In general, actors are not lit, shot, or clothed to exhibit intricate fiber detail.

I also did not note much in the way of fine object detail.

Since we are on the subject of believable CGI, I think reviewers might be divided as to whether the talking dogs look, move, and sound believable.

There are also a number of sequences in which a CGI mouse and iguana are probably too cute and bouncy to blend seamlessly in a live action title.

There are also some scenes around Mexico in which the pyramids, mountains and stairs are clearly made of poured concrete and fiberglass and where some blue-screen effects look pretty unnatural.

There are lots of medium close-ups on the dogs. I found them sharp and pleasing, but not really noteworthy.

So, what's the draw here?

For good stretches, Chihuahua fills the screen with vibrant colors, impressive city, town and landscapes and a lot of very cute puppies. When all is said and done, it is a very solid, hard working blu-ray chock full of bright, sharp, colorful pictures.

I believe it would make a very pleasant demo disc, but I did not find it to possess reference qualities.

Recommendation: Tier 1.75

Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen

Would it be possible for you to provide some commentary to go along with the Tier recommendation, particularly since some of us think it belongs in the middle of Tier 2?

Prepare for the wrath to come.

No wrath coming from me, but I am BAFFLED!

Okay, so now there's 3 for Tier 0 and 2 for Tier 1. Right now it looks like SuprSlow would be placing it at about the Tier 1.0 mark. Another one or two members weighing in would be nice, for if they see it for what it is (Tier 0 quality...), that could place it in the bottom of Tier 0, which would be okay with me.

I'll be renting it soon, Denny, I have a free rental at one place so I'll pick it up with that.

Am I going to be the sacrificial lamb on The Princess Bride? Is this new today? I picked it up this morning and I'm scared to tear into the plastic... impulse buying and all (despite the fact that they had it tucked in a corner of their Blu Ray rack... it's an impulse if I'm SEARCHING for it, right? )


off to check the thread for the title. I already own this on at least 2 dvd copies (plus the DVD the Blu comes with) and i absolutely LURVE this movie but I'm scared to crack it open and see a DNR/EE mess!

I've got it Netflixed.... but it's not at the top of my queue Tonight I plan on watching Let the Right One In...

I ordered this title based entirely on the very healthy bitrate shown on the stats thread, plus posts there indicating it looks good. I've never seen this movie.

Patrick -- it's one of my favourite movies of all time, I'm sure it would make my top 10 if I ever made one. Although I do have a healthy feministic reaction towards Buttercup... But when I do my review of it, I will spoiler it if you'd like, as I'm sure it might wreck it for you.


eta -- and for those of you who do like this movie, if you've never read the book, you should. It's fantastic.

I'll be very interested in seeing your review on both Beverly Hills Chihuahua and Princess Bride. Our family has watched Princess Bride at least 10 times over the years...I know what you're thinking...that that's INCONCEIVABLE!

I'm glad to hear what patrick said about the high bitrate. I will more than likely end up getting this title.

I had a look at the screencaps in the thread, but reserving judgement until I watch this. Waiting for my daughter to get home from school, as she loves this movie as well. I had picked up this Inconceivable t-shirt for the hubs about a month ago, but although the description says the colouring is red, it's actually metallic pink, so it has become mine. (He can be happy with his Inigo Montoya & Andre the Giant t-shirts instead. ).


The back of the box says AVC @38MBPS, 50gig dual layer, English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio, 1.85:1 aspect ratio if that helps you out at all!

...and as a simple counter to this: Tier 1.0 would still definitely be too high for this title in my opinion.

The Shawshank Redemption

I gotta disagree with the current 2.75 placement. This is a very good looking title, at least toward the Top of Tier 2 rather than the bottom.

Sure, this film may not have gorgeous settings, or tons of action to show off your system, but it is lit and shot beautifully and is consistently sharp and detailed throughout. Roger Deakins is an incredible DP and knows how to get the most out of each shot. Despite it's drab setting that the majority of the film takes place in, he finds a way to make some truly beautiful shots.

Film grain is fine and intact throughout with no hint of DNR, EE, or any other crap we don't want to see. It is very natural looking while maintaining that film like look most of us know and love. Skin tones are generally spot on but there a few instances where they are drawn out a bit much.

Blacks and contrast are great and strong throughout but there is a bit of detail lost sometimes in the shadows. (Could also be from the setup I was watching on though, not my normal plasma.) Night scenes held up great. Colors were desaturated but still maintained a nice look that was pleasing.

Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face. Tim Robbins face is much smoother, but he was never soft. I did notice a few soft shots of the captain guard, but nothing too distracting. Fine details were also found on the prison uniforms, suit jackets, and in closeup shots.

Overall I can't place this any lower than Tier 2.25.

Recommendation: Tier 2.25.

Sony 60A2000 via PS3 @ about 8 feet.

I was one of those who gave it a 2.75 -- I just didnt see a lot of fine detail in the entire movie (at least not to the level of most tier 2.0 titles). It looked better than the DVD, but it wasn't a huge difference. The movie looks like it was from the same master as the old DVD from like 2000. The one thing it had going for it is that it was pretty consistent..otherwise it would have been a Tier 3.X vote from me).

When warner decides to step it up and give it a new transfer and create a 4K master, I bet it will look much better...

Side Note: I love the movie and thought it looked good...but it didnt appear to have a lot of effort put into it.

I think the overall appearance of Australia is a 1.0 tier movie. There are some tier 0 shots and facial detail is excellent as is detail in general. There were only a couple of scenes that had less detail and were more tier 2 and they were only a couple of seconds when the helicopter was doing flyovers of the outback/bush. At the end of the movie there was some halo/ringing/EE around Kidman and Jackman in the closing scene, but that was very brief and only at the end that I could notice and I virtually never notice halos/ringing.

The outback landscapes and cinematography were extremely sharp and detailed and while I agree some may see the desert vistas as bleak, I saw them as Ralph described. They have incredible depth and detail. I have lived in Oregon almost 20 years and I have had the opportunity to see more desert and drive through them more than I did when I lived back east. While I always thought deserts are boring and stark compared to a nice green forest, I have really learned to appreciate just how beautiful desert landscapes are. I wouldn't want to live in a desert, but some are truly stunning to look at especially when you have canyons and rock formations with color striations . This is exactly what I see in vivid detail when watching Australia as it captures the landscape perfectly. I do occasionally get emails from my cousins down under who show me pics of Australia and of kangaroos and wallabies in their back yards just hanging out like squirrels.

I liked the movie overall and was expecting worse, since I had read about Kidman's comments.

I also want to comment on two things.

I have been and will continue to stay out of debates about how one another views films and what they see no matter how many tiers off. The reason is simple. Opinion. This isn't just directed at you Patrick, but to all. There is very little if any chance of me changing anyone's recommendation for tier placement and very little chance anyone will change mine. It isn't about being stubborn, pride or wanting things a certain way. We see things differently regardless of equipment differences, rooms, lighting, seating distance, etc., but now add in those things and we can see films from a significantly different viewpoint, not all the time, but certainly many times. Then add in the bias of liking certain genres, colors, landscapes, architecture, actors and actresses, and other variables film to film and regardless of what anyone says claiming they are objective, they really cannot be because in some ways they are influenced by the above variables. This is why I believe I and others see movies differently, namely titles that some are claiming are not demo/reference when I see them as demo/reference.

The second point I want to make is about "pro reviewers" like Ralph Potts. I reference them to see what they have to say. Many times I agree with their assessments and sometimes I do not agree. While I don't believe the pro reviews should be given added or more weight than anyone here, I don't believe they should be given any less weight and are a good reference to list and discuss if one so chooses. I don't see mentioning pro reviewers any differently than mentioning Xylon's threads or other individual movie threads starting by members who are commenting on PQ. Mentioning or referencing pro reviewers is not promoting them or should I say it doesn't have to be a promotion, but rather is simply a reference.
ALL are valid opinions.


I see it as all opinions based on beliefs even though there are standards and guidelines. IF someone does or doesn't see something a certain way, then why we would argue, debate or even try to tell them they are wrong and should see it a certain way. We are then forcing our opinions and beliefs on others which is why some get defensive. We either respect each others opinions or we don't.

Huh?

Here's a still shot of Mr. Freeman from Shawshank....

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...574&position=5

Granted, he is sweaty in this shot, but detail-wise -- this is representative of how his and other faces look in the film -- and IMO faces
do have a shiny/waxy look even when they are not sweaty.

Usual facial detail is completely MIA.

And? Did I say the facial closeups were Tier 0 status?

That screen you posted doesn't even look that bad.

Here's this one that looks good to me.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rge%20rock.jpg

LB, that link didn't work. Maybe this:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...on_blu-ray.htm

Here's what was written....

Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face.

I completely disagree with this. I do not consider these "great" close-ups. And these, including the ones on DVD Beaver, are reprentative of what you'll see in Shawshank. Watch Wanted and you'll see all of Morgan Freeman's moles and facial character. It is MIA in these shots. These shots of Freeman look almost as bad as the faces in Zulu.

When you watch titles where facial detail is removed, this is how it looks. The ultra fine detail is smeared.

Midnight Meat Train

I read Stumlad's review of this and I agree with details he listed. There isn't a lot going on in this film PQ wise as most of it is dark, but what is there is consistent. Facial details and details in general were very good exhibiting a lot of the tier 0 standard. My main issue with this film was not the cgi, but MMT had a lot of that digital noise type of grain compression that makes the screen seem like it is crawling. I don't care for it and it is most apparent in black and white or muted color scenes.

I am not a huge fan of gory horror unless it has some story and some good acting to it. THis type of movie falls into that realm. At times it is difficult to watch the horror and gore and makes the Saw movies almost seem tame in comparison.






Recommendation: Tier 2.0

I said "generally great," Meaning for the most part.

I never said there was any ultra fine detail resolved in any of the faces either.

Most were top Tier 2 for me and some Mid Tier 2 or a bit lower.

Definitely better than The Godfather, that's for sure.

With all due respect Rob, your opinion has already been given (as has mine), so it will be the opinions of others who decide the fate of this title.

Duh.

But you were going on about how you would be satisfied with a bottom Tier 0 placement. Am I not allowed to counter that by saying even a Tier 1.0 placement is too high?

I think not.

Definitely better than The Godfather, that's for sure.


I don't want to get into a pissing match. IMO, it is just a matter of deciding what makes an impressive close-up and what what makes an unimpressive close-up.

DNR and other processing removes the fine detail leaving faces sort of smeary looking, like you see in Shawshank. This to me, is a negative.

Further, when a title is processed in these ways, usually other detail goes with it.

Commonly, you will also find it difficult to make out things like single strands of eyebrow hair or head hair. If can make them out, it won't be sharp.

This is what you see in Shawshank; in close-ups, eyebrows are not sharp and well resolved, it is difficult to make out single strands.

Same with head hair.

You can see hair, but if you look close, you realize you cannot make out single strands, cannot see individual color variation from strand to strand.

When I can see well resolved pores, single strands of eyebrow, eyelash, head hair, can make out color variation from strand to strand of head hair -- that's a great close-up.

You can't fake that.

So, to my eyes, the close-ups in Shawshank are a negative.

It'd be better not to have them than to move close and show missing and smeared detail.

Godfather, on the other hand, has some amazing close-ups where you can see pores, single strands of eyebrow, variation between single strands of head hair.

That's what you can get when you leave the grain alone.

.

Hehhe... great movie... for what it is! I liked the first Saw, but it seems like the creators went away thinking it was the gore that made it good, when in fact, it was the way the story was told that made it unique and scary. I guess you can say the same for most movies with a sequel

LOL Beck you crack me up. I feel like I am chasing my tail.

I never said the facial closeups were reference, and I repeat, not even near Tier 0 status. What you describe that we SHOULD see are TIER ZERO closeups.

Let's move on.

Naugahyde!

Let the Right One In

The transfer looked pretty good, but grain didnt seem very apparent. I don't know if it was the film stock, or what the deal was, but this movie didnt have much grain to it. Other than that, there was some good examples of fine detail, but other areas didnt.

This look of the film was definitely not meant to be a "wow". Some face closeups were pretty good and you could see texture on the faces of the young actors as well as the older people. These weren't Tier 0 worthy, but they were very good. Sweaters and hair seemed to definitely show the blu advantage, as did some long distant scenes. There was a lot of snow, and I believe scenes with it weren't quite as strong as I would have thought they should be. Fine detail wasn't apparent in all scenes either.

Colors were strong, but the overall image was a bit flat. Sometimes the colors by themselves popped, but the overall image didn't. This was definitely intent, but the overall contrast wasn't strong. Black levels were near black, but not quite completely black.

Tier Recommendation 2.5