AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   HD DVD Software (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/152-hd-dvd-software/)
-   -   300 HD DVD edition*PIX* Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/152-hd-dvd-software/883124-300-hd-dvd-edition-pix-reviews.html)

xombi 08-13-2007 07:53 AM

Bottom line...the PQ is not that great...the difference between hd and sd for this release is minimal. And once again people who shelled out 25 dollars for this just have to defend it no matter what. Just admit it, the "director's grain-style" hurt the PQ. I saw it in theaters and remembering how the digital grain looked like tiny lightning bugs. Recent adopters to hd-dvd, or bluray who bought this have been dissapointed. "But it's the director's film style"....blah, blah, blah. Shut up!

FrancescoP 08-13-2007 08:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xombi View Post

Bottom line...the PQ is not that great...the difference between hd and sd for this release is minimal.

The difference with 480p DVD is NOT minimal.

It's way above 720p, and you can see for yourself with a simple DU Test comparison.

Look at this mouseovers comparing it to 480p:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...rdu4802ix8.png

http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...erdu480gc8.png

And now look at this mouseovers comparing it to 720p:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...rdu7202oi9.png

http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...erdu720nh9.png

Even more details than 720p. Definitely Full HD.

Topweasel 08-13-2007 08:38 AM

Its very apparent to anybody who has bothered to flip the disc over and watch it in SD that this even more then King Kong is what High def is about. The grain being miss handled because of its intensity on the SD basically blurs out the whole picture all of the time. 300 Looks sharp, detail is there, but the Grain is much more apparent. Perfect transfer of a very stylized movie.

Art Sonneborn 08-13-2007 08:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xombi View Post

Bottom line...the PQ is not that great...the difference between hd and sd for this release is minimal. And once again people who shelled out 25 dollars for this just have to defend it no matter what. Just admit it, the "director's grain-style" hurt the PQ. I saw it in theaters and remembering how the digital grain looked like tiny lightning bugs. Recent adopters to hd-dvd, or bluray who bought this have been dissapointed. "But it's the director's film style"....blah, blah, blah. Shut up!

Sorry, I disagree completely. I'm not disappointed ,at all ,because I saw this film in IMAX conversion and expected crushed blacks and tons of grain... I didn't expect this film being well transfered to HD to mean it would look like an XBox game.

Art

suffolk112000 08-14-2007 07:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Sorry, I disagree completely. I'm not disappointed ,at all ,because I saw this film in IMAX conversion and expected crushed blacks and tons of grain... I didn't expect this film being well transfered to HD to mean it would look like an XBox game.

Art

Yes Art, you are correct. 300 looks the way I remembered it in the theater as well. The problem is, the grain at the theater was absolutely hideous as well. I guess I am not so much complaining about whether this dvd looked like the original or not. I just can't stand all the grain. Regardless as to whether it looked like the original.
I have heard that the grain was added to help mask some of the CGI.

Craig

Xylon 08-16-2007 10:43 PM


Kez 08-17-2007 12:40 AM

I did a comparison between the SD side and the HD DVD side and IMO the HD side looked much better I couldn't stand the SD side.

jefflins 08-17-2007 06:39 AM

Ok, I copped out and got the BD version (and posted a review of it over on the BD forums) to save 4 bux. But I'm sure the HD version is identical- I just can't flip the disk to do a SD comparison. But what I saw was a really nice HD flick. The grain did not distract me at all, as it fit with the muted pallette and dark colors, etc. I get the stylized comic book adaptation.

The film was contrasty and the sharpness of the image could still be seen behind the grain. I can't imagine the SD version would look like anything but mud compared to the HD version. Without the blackest blacks to bump the contrast up, and without that sharpness that HD provides, a movie like this would just have to a mess in SD (on a large screen...probably fine on a 42" plasma or something).

ColinZeal 08-17-2007 06:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDphile22 View Post

I mean, what's the point of HD? To see things Clearly, like much realistic, seeing things much sharper and 3D feel right?

But, with this movie's Grains effect, I Don't think it makes a big difference between the DVD version and HD DVD version.

Both the DVD and HD DVD/Blu-ray will have a lot of Grains anyway, so Why bother with the HD format as it won't look very clear anyway?

The bold part might be the most stupid thing i´ve ever read on this forum. And this from someone calling himself HDphile...
If the grain is evident on both HD and SD (dvd), why bother with the dvd? blu-ray has much better sound and even if you can´t listen to it right now, you might be able in the future.

Why bother with the dvd?

jefflins 08-17-2007 06:44 AM

I already posted this on another forum, but it's appropriate here. I'd like to not get into historical arguments about eh persians vs spartans, etc...it's just a bloody film review from my perspective...I watched in BD, but assume it's identical in HD DVD.

Ok, first the positives:

-Snip-

Next popular gripe is the "grain"...let me tell you, for ME, it was great. I think a stroke of brilliance. It is very fine, and works very well with the rest of the way the film is shot and delivered to you. I suspect it was helpful in hiding some of the CGI effects as well This film just wouldn't have looked right if it was a big colorful, razor sharp movie.

Picture is fantastic. Don't let the grain throw you...you can see right through it to what is a brilliantly sharp and constrasty image. The pallette is somewhat muted, with the exception of certain oversaturated colors. It works. Both in terms of "the film" as well as a film take on a comic book...certain scenes have a look like they were right from the printed page, and thats a tribute to how well the vision was realized (IMHO...I'm guessing this was his vision).

Audio is very good. -snip- Clear dialogue, nice effects, some nice surround effects.

Now the negatives:

This is pretty much a B movie in my book...beautiful cinematography? Well, not really...nice scenes, but pretty much all CG. Costumes? Appropriate, but simple. Nothing to blow you away with there. Dialogue? Yeah, it's pretty bad. Some inspiring one liners ( you did see the commercials/trailers for the movie, right?). Some cheese as well. It's a pet peeve of mine to have the "buddies" throw cheesy lines at one another when they are in the middle of some huge fight where they are the underdogs. "You're still here?" "Sorry to ruin your day!" That kind of crap. Not much here, but once is too much. Overall, this isn't a movie that is really about dialogue.

With one exception, there is no character development at all. Zero. And when something bad happens to a completely undeveloped character, we are supposed to give a hoot? I don't think so. This isn't a movie about character development.

What this is is a movie about action...and in that respect...it's fairly average. The fight scenes are pretty boring, and I'm not sure that the 300 were so tough or if everybody else just sucked. The enemy don't fight *at all*. And the blood that was cool in the trailer, just gets old after a while.

And while I know the movie isn't supposed to be a documentary, or be really much more than a fictional movie based on a comic book, I still can't get over flaws within the fictional boundaries set by the movie. Shields that sometimes act like they are made of iron, yet falling arrows pierce it? Tough enemies that don't fight, at all...Others who fight so well one minute, but not the next?

Then there are imperfections in the movie, like snow blowing on the ground that looks like cotton...because it probably is. Or a man wincing before he gets slapped, because (take fourteen...ACTION!) he knows it's coming. Generally, the acting is not...top notch. Though not the bottom of the barrel either.

So you probably think I didn't like 300. Well...I actually did. For me, this is a movie that is greater than the sum of it's parts. It's a fun movie to watch...once at least. Oh, andwhile it will be fun for the guys, I don't think the ladies will be in love with it...popcorn film, not too long...not too bad, some cool moments.

My rating...a very appropriate..."B"

Davinleeds 08-17-2007 01:53 PM

I would go B++, Grain was anticipated and many scenes very clear. A few focus flubs IMO, and this was not a thinking man's movie, but raw action, and sometimes that's what I want. I would A- it if dialog would have included other historical facts.

eric.exe 08-18-2007 01:32 AM

Someone add comparison pics of the HD Quicktime trailer posted before the movie's release. To me, it looked a lot sharper and didn't have so much grain.


http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd/

Supermans 08-18-2007 01:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Someone add comparison pics of the HD Quicktime trailer posted before the movie's release. To me, it looked a lot sharper and didn't have so much grain.


http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd/


I noticed that too. It is possible a different grain filter was used.

buzzyboy 08-20-2007 03:16 AM

Watched it. Imediately went out and joined Equinox Fitness Club.

price3 08-20-2007 07:30 AM

Wow, anyone who thinks this title doesn't benefit from HD doesn't need an hd player. Just look at the very first comparison, at the fabric on the traitor guy's cloak. One is blurry, the other is perfectly defined corded texture. Although I didn't like this movie as much as I hoped, the HD version looks WAY better than the SD.

Xylon 08-29-2007 03:39 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by price3 View Post

Wow, anyone who thinks this title doesn't benefit from HD doesn't need an hd player. Just look at the very first comparison, at the fabric on the traitor guy's cloak. One is blurry, the other is perfectly defined corded texture. Although I didn't like this movie as much as I hoped, the HD version looks WAY better than the SD.

People that complain about the "grainness" of this title just don't get it.

zingerhill 08-29-2007 10:12 AM

Has anyone compared the HD DVD version to the download version off of Xbox live?

I downloaded the xbox version last week (haven't watched it yet), but I just got the HD DVD player. I'm trying to figure out if it is worth renting the HD DVD version instead and eating the cost of the Xbox download.

coldmachine 11-02-2007 06:55 AM

The first 2 screens in the thread below are of 300 HD-DVD on a 14ft screen using an HT5000/ISCOIII combo. The advantages of HD are readily apparent even considering the nature of screen shots.

https://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=931929


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.