Originally Posted by Boba Fred
Is it possible that I have a bad copy of this blu-ray? Purchased at best buy.
Not likely. Blurred video isn't really a possible symptom of replication error. There would have to be two different disc pressings, using different video authoring for that to happen.
Broke down and brought the Lethal Weapon set on Blu, and I am very disappointed with the picture quality on part 2. My DVD copies were way better, but I traded them as soon as I got this set. I mean 2 is almost unbearable to watch. It is just painful pq. Does anyone else have this problem? I know it is an old movie, but my god, where the love for this movie?
Part 2 is the only one in the set that I haven't watched, but anytime dvd looks "way better" than BD, you can almost guarantee it's not the disc, something sounds seriously
amiss with your setup or memory. The initial BDs of 1 and 2 were seriously misproduced - messed up just about as badly as any home video release I've ever seen. Even WB has acknowledged that there was an authoring mistake. I compared that BD directly to the DVD, and in terms of actual resolution the dvd still wasn't remotely "better". The dvd looked far more compressed, as is inherent of the dvd format. But the BD did lose out overall; because of the wrong filter being applied (according to WB), not only did resolution suffer to a such significant degree that it could easily be mistaken for dvd even in larger home FP venues, but serious aliasing was introduced.
I just watched the UK edition of Lethal Weapon (1) the other day and WB definitely fixed the problem with it. I suspect the second is fixed too, but I can't say for sure, having not seen it yet. That said, it's also pretty clear that WB didn't go very far out of their way in updating these films. What improvement there is, while significant, could just as easily be the result of not totally messing up this time. But the resolution and grain structure is typical of WBs mastering practices in the early to mid 2000's, more so than what they're doing today.
That includes Lethal Weapon 4. It's clear it hasn't been properly restored. I'm not even convinced it's been optimally (genuinely) remastered. In fact, I'd bet against it. It's a far cry from what WB has been doing in recent years with new films and their genuinely updated catalog titles, as few as those may be. If the reviewer here actually believes otherwise, either the US and UK editions are NOTHING alike, or he desperately needs a new display, one capable of compulsory 1080p video evaluation, as, if they are the same, his perspective is being seriously skewed by more than mere inexperience.
I really didn't expect anything more from WB. But I'm eager to see the US set now to compare. I know a lot of people have claimed both editions are the same. It's understandable that someone reviewing on a more forgiving 60 inch or smaller display might not be able to distinguish between a truely reference master and an outdated one, as WB has all but perfected the art of the spit-shine. But, I can't see how even Mr. Brown could miss some of the problems I saw with my UK copy of LW4 last night, if they manifest on the US edition as well.
Starting at the scene when Gibson comes home to a pregnant Russo, through their walk on the beach and into at least the next couple scenes after that, there's some quivering of the video. At first I thought it was unstable camera work. And it's entirely possible that a different camera was used for those shots or something else that's related more to the production than the mastering and authoring of these films to HD disc, as the last time I watched LW4, it was a dvd on a more forgiving 65" as well. But the jittery video also speaks to an improper filtering algorithm. As the UK is known to censor violence, the possibility of a byproduct of compensation for something being cut, occured to me as well.
I'm going to try to do some digging before investing in the US edition too though - try to verify it's not either a problem with the photography or both editions, before investing more money.