AVS Forum banner

The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion

4M views 27K replies 1K participants last post by  Phantom Stranger 
#1 ·
See less See more
1
  • Like
Reactions: Phantom Stranger
#12,761 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legairre /forum/post/16661589


How are titles ranked? I'm asking because of the Horton issue I posted, and I just searched for Flight of the Phoenix and it's ranked at Tier 2 silver. Funny thing it's ranked at Tier 2, but there isn't a single post for Flight of the Phoenix in this thread or the original PQ thread. How can it be ranked if no one posted or voted for it?


What's up?

Sounds like it was on the original thread. See page 2, post #54 of this thread.


Again, if you disagree, write up a formal review and get it moved to where you feel it belongs.
 
#12,763 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun /forum/post/16221097

Synecdoche, New York


Type that five times fast! Fine grain present throughout the movie, becoming a bit coarser on darker scenes. The movie very much had a film-like presentation. Even though the setting is in the present (and based on the in-story passing of time, the future), the film's color scheme gave it an older look. I would even say a dated look.


The movie looked very soft to me for the most part. Faces never exhibited fine details we've seen in Tier 0 or even Tier 1. Clothing texture was very disappointing, specially when they were presented in such a way (lighting, zoom, etc.) that they should have exhibited much more detail. Black levels varied pretty widely from scene to scene. For the most part, they were above average. Shadow details were well maintained.


Contrast seemed troublesome in a number of scenes, but I believe they were shot that way for effect. For purposes of this thread, however, they brought the PQ down a notch. Some of the better scenes PQ-wise occurred were in the 1hr 35min mark, along with the Emily Watson scenes.


On a positive note, I did not detect any DNR or EE.


Overall, PQ suited the story very well. This obviously was not meant to be a demo disc and I feel the PQ succeeded in keeping it out of the demo tiers...

Tier Recommendation: 2.75

ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'

Good review. I watched again last night. 2.75 sounds good to me!
 
#12,764 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun /forum/post/16662290


From what I'm seeing, the votes for Tier 1 were actual reviews, while the others were just mentions of how great the PQ looked (no real supporting arguments). Remember, this is not a polling thread. We are here to discuss the merits of why a BR belongs to a specific tier, based on descriptions from page 1.


For example, if someone's saying it's soft and there's no counter, heavier weight may be placed on the soft claim. I say "may be" because, in the end, it's up to the OP to decide.


Again, the best way to be heard is to have a compelling argument as to why you feel a title was misplaced. Articulate your points clearly and your vote will be considered.

I'm referring to the 2 for tier 1 and 3 for tier 0 where people actually used bold letters and made an official recommendation. I'm not counting any of the conversations about placement just the official recommendations.


What get's counted conversations where someone says "looks like tier blank to me" or the ones with bold letters? If the thread is based on the post with bold letters and a recommendation in bold (per the rules on page #1) then Horton should already be Tier 0 not tier 1.


Do the plain old conversations with no bold letters count?
 
#12,765 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun /forum/post/16662355


Sounds like it was on the original thread. See page 2, post #54 of this thread.


Again, if you disagree, write up a formal review and get it moved to where you feel it belongs.

Does the original thread exist somewhere with who posted & recommendations etc..?
 
#12,766 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott /forum/post/16661525


it's Funny Game


??? The movie I reviewed is called Funny Games, or alternatively Funny Games U.S. It is the 2007 remake of a 1997 Australian movie.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Funny-Games-...5195680&sr=1-1


And if anyone ever questions SuprSlow's final placement of a title and can justify a change from past opinions, he has been very amenable to readjusting positions.
 
#12,767 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott /forum/post/16662377


where did you buy them from? I did two-day Prime shipping from Amazon and they got it here on release. I wasn't expecting that.

Amazon as well, but I guess one's not treated as well without Prime.



Welcome back, LBFilmGuy! Put the pipe down and slip a few BRs in!



Legairre: as stated before, if you disagree, go ahead and submit your own review of the disputed title. Just my opinion, but I didn't see any compelling arguments from the Tier 0 recommendations (for Horton).
 
#12,768 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger /forum/post/16664848


??? The movie I reviewed is called Funny Games, or alternatively Funny Games U.S. It is the 2007 remake of a 1997 Australian movie.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Funny-Games-...5195680&sr=1-1


And if anyone ever questions SuprSlow's final placement of a title and can justify a change from past opinions, he has been very amenable to readjusting positions.

crap you're right, i'm sorry. i was remembering it wrong.
 
#12,769 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun /forum/post/16664966


Legairre: as stated before, if you disagree, go ahead and submit your own review of the disputed title. Just my opinion, but I didn't see any compelling arguments from the Tier 0 recommendations (for Horton).

I did when I made my post with the original question.


Forget any particular title. I'm trying to understand the system used to rank titles. Are the conversations used or the official bolded recommendations that follow the rules on page #1? Or is it both?


I'm not directing my question to any particular person, anyone who knows the answer is free to respond.
 
#12,770 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger /forum/post/16664848


And if anyone ever questions SuprSlow's final placement of a title and can justify a change from past opinions, he has been very amenable to readjusting positions.

Phantom I just read your post. Thank you, It appears that a member named SuprSlow is responsible for the rankings, so I should probably send my question directly to him instead of asking the indivuduals who post here. When all else fails go right to the top.


I'll pm him, Thanks.
 
#12,772 ·
There's good depth with decent sharpness and detail in most scenes. Colors are mostly subdued. Some grain. Overall it has a very film-like look.


On my disc there was a picture drop out somewhere between 10:29 and 11:39 that lasted a second or two.


I thought it was a nice transfer and would place 3 Days of the Condor Tier 3.0.


This is one of my favorite films. Even though 3 Days of the Condor is a 1985 film and the computer and communication technology it shows are dated, it's still relevant today. The late Syndey Pollack does a masterful job of directing and Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway and Max Von Sydow give outstanding performances.


This was a purchase for me, replacing an LD.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'
 
#12,773 ·
Another decent transfer of a catalog title. Detail and depth were good, facial close-ups were almost showing fine detail. Color seemed OK.


I thought the movie was borderline 2.75 to 3.0 but will rate Air Force One Tier 3.0.


As to the movie itself, it's good story telling and entertaining as long as one can suspend disbelief about the use of firearms in an aircraft and overlook a possible case of presidential treason. Harrison Ford probably has the best one-liner of his career-- "Get off my plane."


This was another purchase for me replacing an LD.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'
 
#12,774 ·
Netflix finally sent this movie my way. After watching it I can understand the different opinions as to where Australia should be placed.


To me there seemed to be inconsistencies in PQ. Some of the scenes were drop dead gorgeous, with excellent detail and color. Others, particularly in the last half-hour or so, were less so. Much of the movie was definitely Tier 1 but there was enough that wasn't so I'd rate Australia Tier 2.0.


I was also pleasantly surprised by the movie as I was expecting a yawner. In fact, I found that the first 1:50 or so held my interest quite well. However, the Darwin ending was pretty much overly melodramatic. I also found that at times, the boy was too overly "precious" and the aborigine child relocation issue resolved too easily. Rabbit-Proof Fence gives a more compelling take on that situation.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'
 
#12,775 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 /forum/post/16670347


Another decent transfer of a catalog title. Detail and depth were good, facial close-ups were almost showing fine detail. Color seemed OK.


I thought the movie was borderline 2.75 to 3.0 but will rate Air Force One Tier 3.0.


As to the movie itself, it's good story telling and entertaining as long as one can suspend disbelief about the use of firearms in an aircraft and overlook a possible case of presidential treason. Harrison Ford probably has the best one-liner of his career-- "Get off my plane."


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'

Wasn't the whole thing about guns not being able to be shot on an aircraft debunked? At least for the most part
: http://science.howstuffworks.com/gun....htm/printable
 
#12,776 ·
Bride Wars


Well, as I mentioned in a previous post , I have a bit of a soft spot for Anne Hathaway movies (Bring Ella Enchanted to Blu Ray already!), and this movie came in from zip.ca.



I'm going to keep this brief (no really; I promise!) since I really don't think many of you will see this.



The PQ of this was inconsistent. Facial detail on the women is definitely lacking, and for the most part on the men as well, however a few scenes had decent detail on some of the guys. It was strange. Textures were not great either, and the colour felt dull.



I mean, it wasn't horrible PQ; but it was fairly average-or-just-below. I wish I had looked at the special features and added in a pop up thing about wedding costs & how much money they actually would have wasted with all the stuff that went on. I would have been more entertained! I hope none of your wives/girlfriends/whomever make you watch this. My husband came home for lunch & it was still on; he ate quickly and returned to work. I could hardly blame him!



Recommendation for Bride Wars: Tier 3.25

Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'
 
#12,777 ·
Ghostbusters


recommendation: Tier 2.75


A comedy from 1984, this movie saw its premiere on Blu-ray just yesterday. The 105-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The BDInfo scan reveals an average video bitrate of 23.51 Mbps for the main feature. Sony Pictures handles their own encoding in-house and the compression here is exemplary work, appearing transparent to the original source. Atypically, the resulting video bitrates vary little from the average video bitrate-figure, mostly hovering in the 24 Mbps range for the entire main feature. The heavy grain structure is easily reproduced without any macroblocking or questionable moments. Even the special effect shots produce no artifacting on close inspection.


While many catalog titles are thrown out on Blu-ray without much thought and care given to the master itself, I can report this is not the case on Ghostbusters. There is virtually no print damage to the image itself. I could count on one hand the rare appearances of stray specks and dirt. It really is a glorious film transfer that appears in all respects faithful to the original film source. Grain is definitely present and moves like it should in the picture. To my eyes there looks to be no use of digital noise reduction to remove grain and other high-frequency information. If it was used in moderation, I wish other studios would emulate what Sony has done on this transfer. It looks entirely faithful to a movie shot on film from the 1980's. That might displease some but it was the correct decision to leave the grain in the picture.


I do not believe any sharpening in post-production has been applied to this transfer. What some may characterize as small halos in amplitude might be in a few of the optical composite shots, but that looks to be a fundamental part of the picture that was a remnant of the techniques used to make those shots. Close inspection of the final scenes on top of the building possibly exhibits this tiny but hardly noticeable effect at standard viewing distances. Otherwise halos are not a visible problem.


The picture is hard to pin down with the standard bromides for picture quality. Some scenes are soft in appearance due to the original photography. Black levels are average at best with a few scenes exhibiting wavy grain in the darkest moments that might be considered sub-par in quality. Viewers who prefer a hot, video look to their high-definition without visible grain should be warned. Grain is omnipresent, particularly early in the movie, which might distract some viewers. Resolution is strong though and superior to other films of similar vintage on Blu-ray such as Amadeus. It is easy to clearly see the somewhat rough skin of Bill Murray's face. The contrast looks improved over the prior dvd editions and is decent throughout the movie. Flesh tones look very good and appropriate. Colors in general are nicely balanced with even saturation. They do not pop off the screen like a Pixar movie, but look reasonably strong given the restrained color-scheme of the movie.

Ghostbusters is my second favorite comedy of all-time (coincidentally my favorite comedy of all-time also happened to be released yesterday) and I always have a little trepidation when a beloved catalog title is released on Blu-ray due to how other favorites have been handled in the past. After seeing this stunning transfer that appears completely faithful to the original film, my worries have been laid to rest for this movie. Sony has done a remarkable job on this BD and one that other studios should emulate on catalog titles. This disc is no eye candy but a solid looking release that merits an immediate purchase for fans. I have full confidence in stating we will never see a better looking Ghostbusters ever...on this format anyway. My final recommendation is for placement in tier 2.75.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.76) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Xylon):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post16674628
 
#12,779 ·
I cannot find any information in this thread regarding the Rainn Wilson film 'The Rocker'. I just viewed it and was absolutely astounded by how terrific the picture quality was. I have to re-watch it on my projection setup before posting an official review / placement recommendation but from what I just saw, the colours, contrast, crispness, and 3-D pop were all present in Tier 0 quality. I have not seen a better looking live action bluray disc... but I did watch it on a small screen so this might be clouding my judgement.


Anyway the movie itself is definitely not high brow stuff but it's enjoyable enough.


This one was overlooked in theatres and I guess on its dvd/bd release as well... poor Dwight.
 
#12,780 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacklac /forum/post/16652763

Wallace and Gromit - A Matter of Loaf and Death


This is an excellent disc. You can see the impressions on the clay from how it was formed, finger prints and stuff. I was really curious how well this would look, but I was totally blown away. The 3D depth is unreal. Color is fantastic. This disc is reference all the way! Bring on Curse of the Were-Rabbit! Oh, and the TrueHD 5.1 track is very nice also!

One major downside to some, it is 1080i50.

This should be Tier 0

BTW, this is AVC with TrueHD 5.1 (16-bit). Studio's are Aardman and 2 Entertain. Disc is a BD25.


I watched on my 50" Samsung plasma, Pioneer 51 BD player, DVDO Edge video processor, Denon 1909 AVR and Elemental Designs 7.1.
 
Top