Shooter PQ

[erowe83]

This is a great looking blu-ray, just wanted to through that out. It loooks badass. Cool movie too.

[BStecke]

I agree. Just watched this last night, very cool movie and great picture quality (although, I was kind of disappointed to see it was MPEG 2 compared to Paramount's usual (as of late) AVC). REALLY wish it had lossless audio though.

[Blu-dock Saint]

I still need to go pick this up, I loved it on dvd I can only imagine what it would look like on Blu.

[erowe83]

yea no lossless audio was a disappointment

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I agree. Just watched this last night, very cool movie and great picture quality (although, I was kind of disappointed to see it was MPEG 2 compared to Paramount's usual (as of late) AVC). REALLY wish it had lossless audio though.

What the hell do you mean by "usual"? That word does not apply in the slightest to the context of your statement. In the entire collection that Paramount has put on the market, I'd replace "usual" with "RARE" and knock off the "(as of late)" completely. I find that Paramount is the least respectful of the studios when it comes to quality on Blu-ray strictly because they are too cheap to invest in the quality of the AVC codec. I've been saying it forever... "SHAME ON THEM!!!" Especially when it comes to their staple franchise 'Mission Impossible'. They all look horrible in Hi-Def!!!

I was intending to buy 'Shooter' on Blu-ray... but I'm seriously going to have to mull that impulse over now that I know it's an MPEG-2 transfer.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Especially when it comes to their staple franchise 'Mission Impossible'. They all look horrible in Hi-Def!!!

i did not think they looked terrible. they looked way better than the SD that i have had to live with.

[BStecke]

Right off the top of my head, Black Snake Moan, The Untouchables, Flags of our Fathers, and the upcoming Blades of Glory are all AVC . . . So, to reiterate my statement, most of Paramount's releases AS OF LATE are AVC. And Shooter looks very good, despite it being MPEG 2.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by gamma626

i did not think they looked terrible. they looked way better than the SD that i have had to live with.

They may look better than SDVD, but they look horrible as Hi-Def Blu-ray.

And the percentage of their total releases in AVC is way too low to give them that much credit. 'Shooter' just proves that they are too cheap! They can make way more money by using the same codec as SDVD at a higher bitrate?!?! That is not what Hi-Def is all about! I take offense to their treatment of the format. Once they release 10 AVC transfers in a row, then I'll start to give them the benefit of the doubt as a studio that is beginning to respect their viewers.

[BStecke]

While the proportion of the whole is low, Paramount has been showing favoritism for Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD by releasing video transfers that are of higher quality than their HD-DVD counterparts, and are starting to favor Blu-ray in the audio department as well. While their earlier releases (Tomb Raider comes to mind) were pretty bad, Paramount has put out some very respectable releases in the last few months. Transformers may prove to be another 300, where the sales of BD will probably eclipse HD-DVD, but more importantly, the quality of the release will more than likely, given recent trends, be superior in every aspect to the HD-DVD. More than we can say for Warner at this point . . .

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by BStecke

While the proportion of the whole is low, Paramount has been showing favoritism for Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD by releasing video transfers that are of higher quality than their HD-DVD counterparts, and are starting to favor Blu-ray in the audio department as well. While their earlier releases (Tomb Raider comes to mind) were pretty bad, Paramount has put out some very respectable releases in the last few months. Transformers may prove to be another 300, where the sales of BD will probably eclipse HD-DVD, but more importantly, the quality of the release will more than likely, given recent trends, be superior in every aspect to the HD-DVD. More than we can say for Warner at this point . . .

AHA!!! That will be a perfect testament to their attitudes toward Hi-Def. If they are still money grubbing (can anyone say STAR TREK?!?!) bastards, then 'Transformers' will attest to it!

And I will admit that in the last couple of months they were starting to gain my respect with the releases that you mentioned earlier. However, as soon as 'Shooter' was mentioned as an MPEG-2 transfer, they pitfalled back to their stone age position on my respectometer.

[PaulDubya]

I love my Blu copy wouldnt trade it for the world except for another copy of 300 nah i changed my mind i want it all!!!!!! lol

[erowe83]

Quite frankly who cares if its MPEG, cause Shooter is one of the best looking Blu-ray's.

[BStecke]

Shooter could have been prepped for HD months ago, to coincide with the DVD release. Something to consider, I don't know, it's just conjecture. Myself and the reviewer on Highdefdigest (Bracke?) were both kind of surprised to see the use of MPEG 2, so maybe it was something that's been on the shelf for awhile. I really can't stress enough though that it is still a good quality release.

Given their attitude toward most of their new releases, and especially the announcement that Blades of Glory will be optimized for Blu-Ray, I'd expect Transformers to be an impressive release.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

They may look better than SDVD, but they look horrible as Hi-Def Blu-ray.

well they look good to me because i have not seen the top movies yet. (Apocalypto, Pirates, Casino Royale, Ghost Rider Etc.)

[warren]

i havent watched yet shooter.........

[Genocide316]

Just finished watching Shooter...great movie...great PQ IMO

[zombieking]

PQ really is that good?? I've been seeing mixed reviews, but no matter, I'll be picking this one up on the weekend

[BaeDaTruth]

lol i'm hearing so much about a movie that made absolutely no noise at all...is it really worth buying? or is it a new blu ray movie that everyone's being overly excited about...i need some truth

[shido]

Jeez, when are people going to learn that codecs don't have anything to do with PQ? MPEG2 can look just as good as VC-1 or AVC if given the proper treatment. Trust your eyes, not the codec - some of Sony's best looking titles early in blu-ray's lifespan were MPEG2. (I'm talking about the stuff they released starting with Tears of the Sun) And MI:3 from Paramount was also a great looking MPEG2 transfer, completely identical to the VC-1 encode on HD-DVD. So don't be quick to knock something just cause it uses MPEG2.

[Therickus]

Originally Posted by zombieking

PQ really is that good?? I've been seeing mixed reviews, but no matter, I'll be picking this one up on the weekend

I thought that the DVD looked amazing. One would then think that the BD version would look that much better.