The Dirty Dozen... How does it look?

[giantsfan]

Has anyone seen the Dirty Dozen on Blu Ray? one of my favorite movies and i would love to hear that the blu ray version cleans up nicely thanks

[Deciazulado]

I just did a quick scan and it looks pretty good. Warner seems to do good jobs with classic movies. The clarity is so nice that everytime an optical (example: a dissolve, or a title) comes the dupe material looks blurry and soft, and then it goes back to the in camera film and it looks nice and sharp. It has some of that VC-1 clean signature that some might not like but from my brief exposure I liked most of what I saw specially those Lee Marvin close ups.
VC-1 ranging from 15 Mb/s to 29 Mb/s



Now why did you ask this question on a DVD-A/SACD thread?

[LeoneFan]

Anyone seen the Dirty Dozen on BD yet? How does it look? I want to pick this up this Saturday on the Blu-ray buy-athon day but I'm worried that it's another low bitrate crapfest from Warner. The film I believe is about 2.5 hours long but they have a bunch of special features including the made for TV movie sequel all on the same disc. Now since this is a straight port of the HDDVD 30GB version, I'm kind of hesitant.

[Iceman_II]

Originally Posted by LeoneFan

Anyone seen the Dirty Dozen on BD yet? How does it look? I want to pick this up this Saturday on the Blu-ray buy-athon day but I'm worried that it's another low bitrate crapfest from Warner. The film I believe is about 2.5 hours long but they have a bunch of special features including the made for TV movie sequel all on the same disc. Now since this is a straight port of the HDDVD 30GB version, I'm kind of hesitant.

Not such a good transfer, a lot of the scenes are really "soft" and every now and then one comes along that was transfered almost properly.... all the better scenes do is point out how bad the bad scenes are... If you like the movie and don't have it on DVD, keep it... if not, well, thats up to you to decide.

[LeoneFan]

It's still a step up from the DVD version right? I think I'll get it since my DVD version isn't even anamorphic.

[Deciazulado]

I'm gonna move two older posts related to your question here so they'lll show up above the first post ok?

[buckshot]

i'm watching this right now. OMG it bugs me. some shots look great others look like they were out of focus. how many different types of film were used? it looks like they went form using 35mm to 16mm to 70mm (cropped) in a single scene. you'll be watching one scene and when they switch camera angles it goes from clean, but a little grainy, to out of focus and really grainy then back agian. grain is ok but its just weird. like switching from an hd broadcast to sd. back and forth. good movie....BAD WARNER BROS. wish they'd put more into the original movie's transfer and left the sequal off the disc.

[Banjo]

I just watched this movie tonight. Enjoyed it a lot, but like Deciazulado said, the optical shots appear blurry. Especially during the subtitled scenes.

Overall, it did look good. In the beginning, they could had tweaked around with the skin tone. The movie really didn't appear to be sharp most of the times, so I'll say a 3 to 4 out of 5 depending on the shots. Overall, it would have to be a 3.