HD Disk (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) EE and DNR list - Page 16

Thanks for the thread...
& saving me $$$!!!

Traffic was not an "upscale". None of the major studios are putting out "upscales" on HD DVD or Blu-ray.

I'm pretty sure that Studio Canal's Ran is also from an SD master. It's very sad.

Mhafner,

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...un_blu-ray.htm

The caps looks great but looks like the image has been artificially sharpened.

Do you think DNR is evident from the 1080p screen captures ?

I can see a few halos around the edges of faces and this shot has obvious ringing.

But bitrate is higher. Surely there is some discernable difference.

Somewhere.

There's some pretty smudgy DNR going on in those two pics.

Thanks House. Good that I didn't pre-order Mummy and Mummy Returns as they had average PQ on HD DVD and it's now clear that the new encode was created from the same master with some tinkering.

The clips of this look very good judging from the Studio Canal trailers. It looks nothing like the mess that is Traffic. I wouldn't be surprised if Leaving Las Vegas was from an SD master...it's very soft and there's not much detail, but it's a very clean looking presentation. This may be the way the film is though - it doesn't look like a DVD.

I'm not holding my breath that you're going to provide any proof to back up your assertion...

I thought Xylon's frame grabs were pretty conclusive.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=300

I read through that thread and there is no proof, only conjecture.

If you have a PS3 or HTPC, fire up your browser and view these screenshots thru your calibrated PJ.

It will give you a clue if the viewing set is exaggerating EE or ringing.

I think the EE in TWBB is questionable. It's clear that in many cases, around hats and so, it's just extreme rim lighting, couldn't it then be that they used some EE to simulate the same effect in other parts where they couldn't achieve it through real lighting?

Take the guy on the left in the second to last capture. The effect to his left side; face, hat, shirt etc. is clearly due to lighting, but if you check his right side it becomes harder to tell and it almost looks more like EE. I don't know, it just seems too selective to not be intentional.

Or maybe they're trying to simulate the edge glow seen in some older pictures, that may or may not be an optical issue. Anyone know if Disney used the same encode on their Region B release?

Double post, sorry.

The 5th capture. Arms, shoulders, legs... EE.

I still think the look of this film is very intentional with regards to the era the film is set in and i don't think there is heavy EE in this film....Is there mild EE...Maybe so but it's mild enough that the film doesn't deserve to be on this list.



I'm just not seeing major EE here. Perhaps some very minor stuff on the bottom part of the right leg but look at the background and then wonder if that is part of the optical process because i supplied a link earlier in the thread where they go into detail about how they shot this film.

Gonna go with "no *major* EE". I hardly call that distracting at all, even if it is EE in the first place (questionable). The thickest "halo" is the 5th walking pic where the jacket meets the leg on the left, which is still a far cry from anything else on the list so far.

Let's put it this way, 2001 had people left and right saying it was lens related and others saying it was EE, and that gets a mention on the list of there being reasonable doubt, but TWBB gets immediately thrown on there when it's nowhere near as bad?

+1

Thanks a lot for the screenshots Xylon. If there is some EE than it clearly doesn't influence the look of the film like some suggested. The transfer still looks very faithfull to me (without knowing how the master looks of cause - so only my impression).

That white line on DDL's shoulder is just too clear to ignore though. Maybe it's not Gangs of New York level EE but it certainly is enough to be on the list as "slight EE at times".