Superman:Returns (High-Def Digest Review)

[Masa84]

I love highdefdigest.com, but why they almost allways think HD-DVD is better? I don't understand that. Blu-Ray is BIGGER and LOT BETTER, like Superman Returns tell you that. I know it, I tested it.


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/supermanreturns.html





Regards,
Hi-Definition Specialist

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Masa84

I love highdefdigest.com, but why they almost allways think HD-DVD is better? I don't understand that. Blu-Ray is BIGGER and LOT BETTER, like Superman Returns tell you that. I know it, I tested it.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/supermanreturns.html

Regards,
Hi-Definition Specialist

They are apparently identical transfers. If there are differences, then it will be the players.

Gary

[GoldenRedux]

I cannot agree with the review. I thought the title looked awful when I watched it last night.

Watching on my 43" Samsung 720p RP DLP from 5.5' away with the Panasonic DMP BD10 via HDMI-to-DVI set to 720p, the very same qualities described in that review rated it very low in my book. I thought the colours looked washed out and flat, the blacks looked faded, there was some graininess in darker scenes, and there was an overall softness to the image.

According to the review this was a BD-50?, well then why didn't they tweak the video bitrate on the VC-1 encoding, and where the heck is the TrueHD soundtrack? What's the point of using BD-50 then?

[shido]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I cannot agree with the review. I thought the title looked awful when I watched it last night.

Watching on my 43" Samsung 720p RP DLP from 5.5' away with the Panasonic DMP BD10 via HDMI-to-DVI set to 720p, the very same qualities described in that review rated it very low in my book. I thought the colours looked washed out and flat, the blacks looked faded, there was some graininess in darker scenes, and there was an overall softness to the image.

According to the review this was a BD-50?, well then why didn't they tweak the video bitrate on the VC-1 encoding, and where the heck is the TrueHD soundtrack? What's the point of using BD-50 then?

You know, the issues you point out are probably present in the master for the film - meaning the director made the film look like that on purpose.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I cannot agree with the review. I thought the title looked awful when I watched it last night.

Watching on my 43" Samsung 720p RP DLP from 5.5' away with the Panasonic DMP BD10 via HDMI-to-DVI set to 720p, the very same qualities described in that review rated it very low in my book. I thought the colours looked washed out and flat, the blacks looked faded, there was some graininess in darker scenes, and there was an overall softness to the image.

According to the review this was a BD-50?, well then why didn't they tweak the video bitrate on the VC-1 encoding, and where the heck is the TrueHD soundtrack? What's the point of using BD-50 then?

Because it is a WB film.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by shido

You know, the issues you point out are probably present in the master for the film - meaning the director made the film look like that on purpose.

Well the Richard Donner films have filters on the lenses to create an ethereal look.

I've not seen the film yet, but maybe that's what Bryan Singer was going for as another film in that sequence.

[shamus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I cannot agree with the review. I thought the title looked awful when I watched it last night.

Watching on my 43" Samsung 720p RP DLP from 5.5' away with the Panasonic DMP BD10 via HDMI-to-DVI set to 720p, the very same qualities described in that review rated it very low in my book. I thought the colours looked washed out and flat, the blacks looked faded, there was some graininess in darker scenes, and there was an overall softness to the image.

According to the review this was a BD-50?, well then why didn't they tweak the video bitrate on the VC-1 encoding, and where the heck is the TrueHD soundtrack? What's the point of using BD-50 then?

Im glad Im not the only one to think this!!! I thought that I screwed up a setting on my Panny and then thought the disc may of only been a standard DVD. It was the softest movie Ive seen on BD yet!
Im sure its close to the masters and I dont think a higher Bitrate would of helped... Im perfectly OK with artistic visions and dont mind grain or over color saturations, but not this. Hopefully in the future, film makers will look at how their movie will look in HD before they add their "artisic visions"!

[theknub]

i remember being in the theater and thinking the movie had a soft touch to it. once i was used to it though, i didn't mind. it kind of reminded me of sky captain where there is almost a featherbrushing effect on the edge of most things. my movie is in the mail (hopefully have it today). at that point i'll give a better opinion.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Because it is a WB film.

I know, but they are starting to annoy me. What is the point of leaving the TrueHD soundtrack off of a BD-50 release? This just seems like they are purposely trying to derail Blu-ray or something. They can see fit to put TrueHD on a 30GB HD DVD, but NOT on a 50GB BR? The excuse that no BD player can decode it doesn't cut it because, the Panasonic will with a firmware update, the PS3 does NOW and, what about future proofing?

Can you tell WB is bugging me?

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by shido

You know, the issues you point out are probably present in the master for the film - meaning the director made the film look like that on purpose.

Well, that's why I pointed out that I'd not seen it in the theatre and didn't know for sure if this is what it was supposed to look like in the first place. Even still, it's an awful looking film, IMO. Perhaps the BR is faithful to the original master, but the overall look of the film is far from reference, IMO.

EDIT: I thought I mentioned not seeing the film before, but I must not have mentioned that here, but elsewhere. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I know, but they are starting to annoy me. What is the point of leaving the TrueHD soundtrack off of a BD-50 release? This just seems like they are purposely trying to derail Blu-ray or something. They can see fit to put TrueHD on a 30GB HD DVD, but NOT on a 50GB BR? The excuse that no BD player can decode it doesn't cut it because, the Panasonic will with a firmware update, the PS3 does NOW and, what about future proofing?

Can you tell WB is bugging me?

Plus the future receivers will allow us to play the TrueHD regardless of whether or not the player can decode it.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I know, but they are starting to annoy me. What is the point of leaving the TrueHD soundtrack off of a BD-50 release? This just seems like they are purposely trying to derail Blu-ray or something. They can see fit to put TrueHD on a 30GB HD DVD, but NOT on a 50GB BR? The excuse that no BD player can decode it doesn't cut it because, the Panasonic will with a firmware update, the PS3 does NOW and, what about future proofing?

Can you tell WB is bugging me?

They may be worried about paying more royalties for use of TrueHD, but there is no possible reason not to include a Linear PCM track, it's free.

[dialog_gvf]

And especially since there was plenty of space left over on the 50GB disc. They could have added 96/24 LPCM and had room to spare.

As others have said, this is a clear "playing favorites" move by Warner. They aren't optimizing. And they aren't equalizing.

Paramount, on the other hand, is optimizing the MPEG-2. I saw peaks on MI-3 of >38Mbps.

Gary

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Plus the future receivers will allow us to play the TrueHD regardless of whether or not the player can decode it.

Exactly, so what's their problem?

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

Exactly, so what's their problem?

I don't think they appreciate being told by Time Warner to support BD so they try their best not to do anything to make the BDs better or the same as their darling HD-DVDs.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I don't think they appreciate being told by Time Warner to support BD so they try their best not to do anything to make the BDs better or the same as their darling HD-DVDs.

Maybe we should launch a campaign of complaint to Time Warner, and go over their heads.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

Maybe we should launch a campaign of complaint to Time Warner, and go over their heads.

I have a feeling that the BDA might do just that, the BDA are very very friendly with TW so it definitely isn't out of the picture.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I have a feeling that the BDA might do just that, the BDA are very very friendly with TW so it definitely isn't out of the picture.

Good, because this crippling of the Blu-ray releases by Warner is really irking me.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

Good, because this crippling of the Blu-ray releases by Warner is really irking me.

Same here, while I would love for them to release The Matrix & Co. on BD, but it would irritate me if it was not optimised, and we were missing advanced audio, and a pumped up bitrate using AVC rather than VC-1.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by shido

You know, the issues you point out are probably present in the master for the film - meaning the director made the film look like that on purpose.

Well If it doesn't look like this then they screwed the master in the VC-1 transfer Superman Returns @1080p