AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 113 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
______HDTV___________Blu-ray______













Paramount intro from The Hunt from Red October, scaling matches the HDTV cap so the Blu-ray is stretched horizontally.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
258 Posts
Sitting at a nomal distance from the TV watching the movie "live" I doubt many folks could even tell the two apart...they'd have to walk right up to the TV or sit a foot or two away to keep up with the subtle differences.


"Pathetic" qality as stated above...? hardly imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
In the HBO HDTV cap there's a few shots here and there of cameras, equipment etc (for the movie, not the TV show in the movie
), I don't see why they couldn't have cropped and stretched just those shots, not the whole movie


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,746 Posts
There is a clear difference seen between the Blu-ray and HDTV versions upon close inspection. Look at the third comparison where Carrey is holding a newspaper. The words "WESTSIDE ARTISTS LTD" in the background are clearly visible and well-defined on the Blu-ray while only "WESTSIDE" is even faintly visible on the HDTV version. Colors and flesh tones look superior also on the Blu-ray. It is unmistakable though that the Blu-ray's image has been stretched horizontally in comparison to the broadcast version.


I would say Paramount did okay here for a minor catalog title based off the screen captures but I will withhold final judgment until seeing it in action. Not every movie is going to look spectacular on Blu-ray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger /forum/post/15449214


There is a clear difference seen between the Blu-ray and HDTV versions upon close inspection. Look at the third comparison where Carrey is holding a newspaper. The words "WESTSIDE ARTISTS LTD" in the background are clearly visible and well-defined on the Blu-ray while only "WESTSIDE" is even faintly visible on the HDTV version. Colors and flesh tones look superior also on the Blu-ray.

I'm not trying to point out detail/clarity level because obviously a low bitrate broadcast is not going to hold up well. A high bitrate disc encode of the non-butchered transfer would have much more detail than the HDTV version. I'm trying to point out the horrendous application of DNR and EE.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
First off...What do you all mean by the image has been stretched horizontally ?


That's the second time i have heard someone mention this about a Paramount title....Event Horizon was the other movie mentioned as having been stretched and i'm just wondering what exactly this is doing to the image and does this mean we are not getting a proper cinematic edition in the correct ratio ?


Of course being the second time i have heard this phrase used and both times about Paramount titles it begs the question just how many more new Paramount catalog titles have this issue ?


( Yah i'm asking a newbie type question but i honestly haven't heard the phrase used before )


Secondly the Blu Ray screenshots show a horrendous amount of edge enhancement which i just hate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /forum/post/15449279


First off...What do you all mean by the image has been stretched horizontally ?

Horizontally stretched means excatly what it sounds like it does, i.e that the picture has been cropped on the sides and stretched horizontally, thus breaking the correct width-to-height ratio, which again makes everyone look shorter and fatter



I totally agree with you about the EE. It's horrible and totally unnecessary.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishiro /forum/post/15449481


Horizontally stretched means excatly what it sounds like it does, i.e that the picture has been cropped on the sides and stretched horizontally, thus breaking the correct width-to-height ratio, which again makes everyone look shorter and fatter



I totally agree with you about the EE. It's horrible and totally unnecessary.

Well thats absolutely disgusting...Why would Paramount do that ?


I was thinking of ordering Ghost but i'm going to hold off in case that too has been stretched.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /forum/post/15449502


I was thinking of ordering Ghost but i'm going to hold off in case that too has been stretched.

All of Paramount's new release have been fantastic, no processing at all, I wouldn't worry it. Their catalog releases are really random though, Event Horizon, released on the same day as Truman Show, doesn't have any DNR or EE whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /forum/post/15449502


Well thats absolutely disgusting...Why would Paramount do that ?

I have no Idea, Foxy
Incompetence I guess.

Incidently the Event Horizon seems to be vertically stretched, making people look taller, and round objects looking oval.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
I believe the Truman show was shot 1.66 ratio, as I seem to recall the DVD being pillarboxed. This could account for the stretching to make it 1.78. IMDB has the aspect ratio incorrect. Peter Weir often shot in this ratio.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe /forum/post/15449620


All of Paramount's new release have been fantastic, no processing at all, I wouldn't worry it. Their catalog releases are really random though, Event Horizon, released on the same day as Truman Show, doesn't have any DNR or EE whatsoever.

Perhaps so but on the thread in my signature it was reported Event Horizon is also stretched and if so it makes me wary of picking up catalogue titles from Paramount and when i said new i just meant as in new catalogue releases as their older ones don't seem to have stretching....Perhaps their latest batch does which is why i'm now wary of blind buying Ghost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrickTop /forum/post/15449750


I believe the Truman show was shot 1.66 ratio, as I seem to recall the DVD being pillarboxed. This could account for the stretching to make it 1.78. IMDB has the aspect ratio incorrect. Peter Weir often shot in this ratio.

The original DVD from 1999 is non-anamorphic 1.66:1; the 2005 DVD is cropped to 1.78:1 and is anamorphically encoded.


This new Blu-ray foul up is a real shame, as it's one of my favorite movies and deserves much better treatment. I'll just stick with the 2005 DVD for the time being, which looks very good upconverted (YMMV; subject to screen size and viewing distance, of course).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /forum/post/15449765


Perhaps so but on the thread in my signature it was reported Event Horizon is also stretched and if so it makes me wary of picking up catalogue titles from Paramount and when i said new i just meant as in new catalogue releases as their older ones don't seem to have stretching....Perhaps their latest batch does which is why i'm now wary of blind buying Ghost.

Oh I forgot about that catalog title, I thought you meant Ghost Town


Event Horizon is indeed also stretched, but I believe for a different reason than Truman. Event Horizon's stretching looks to have been accidental, while it was on purpose for Truman show.


The HDTV capture of Truman is considered "open matte", as you can see a few posts up the camera crew is in the shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Ben Williams' Blu-ray.com review gave the picture 4.5/5. I went to their forum and used his own screenshots to prove several things wrong about his review, and I was banned permanently.


Here are some screenshots from the review:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10


Additionally, you can also find 1080p shots in the DVD Beaver review .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Williams /forum/post/0


The Truman Show arrives on Blu-ray in fantastic 1080p transfer.

You can only down-up the shots to 1280x720. That's better than DVD, but I wouldn't tout "1080p." I also wouldn't call it "fantastic," for the same reason a teacher wouldn't write "fantastic! C+" on your homework.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Williams /forum/post/0


The film’s original matted aspect ratio of 1.85:1 has been opened up for this release, allowing the film to fill the entire 1.78:1 frame that is native in 16:9 high definition televisions.

When I first saw the screenshots (first at DVD Beaver and then on Blu-ray.com), I just had the feeling I was watching TNT, if you know what I mean. The moon's a great example of what should be a perfect circle. (click for full-size)





Notice that the moon is wider than it is tall. It should be 126x126, but instead it's 133x126.





I applied the adjustment (shrinking 5%) to several screenshots, and everyone appeared to be breathing better.
























Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Williams /forum/post/0


The film looks fresh and crisp and doesn’t suffer from distracting dirt or residue. It’s about as pristine as they come.

..because it's been smeared away with a putty knife.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Williams /forum/post/0


I didn’t detect a trace of edge enhancement...

Maybe this will help (click for original 1080p image)




I don't want anyone giving me crap about judging the PQ without seeing it in motion. The only problem that goes away in motion is grain, which was smeared out anyway. When it comes to EE, sure I'm not going to catch every single halo if I only have 3 seconds to evaluate a shot, but halos are really just HALF of the problem- you can't miss the blotted messy look that it leaves in its wake. It just looks like texture-less cel-shaded animation. And the other issues (run-of-the-mill 720p resolution and distorted aspect ratio) don't go away in motion either. So no, I don't need to waste my time and money renting it just so I can say it still looks equally bad in motion.



After I posted this on Blu-ray.com, I got this:
Quote:
You have been banned for the following reason:

repeatedly attacking reviewers in spite of warnings. Screenshot science crusade.


Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Ah, the old shut-up-the-poster-before-they-hurt-our-integrity tactic. That wasn't so smart considering where I'm posting this now...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Oh, and

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Williams /forum/post/0


In a comparison to the film’s original DVD release, this Blu-ray edition is a clear upgrade featuring significantly improved and more saturated colors, vastly increased detail and much more pleasing contrast and black levels. The Truman Show looks spectacular on Blu-ray.

As long as it looks better than the $9 DVD...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
Hilarious. Didn't the same happen to some other guy as well for "exposing" the reviewer? Blu-ray.com is good for screenshots, but that's about it. That pasty mess is supposed to be half a point away from the best it could possibly look on BD?


The worst part is that several of the reviewers include that type of "I did not detect any EE/DNR/etc." text when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about. If you don't know how to assess the technical quality in that kind of detail then at least have the courtesy to stick to the "colours look solid" boilerplate and simply slap a score on it.
 
1 - 20 of 113 Posts
Top