Peter B. still can't hide his HD-DVD bias..

[Spankey]

Two new reviews from Peter Bracke at High-Def Digest clearly show the extra effort Peter will give to knock a perfect Blu-Ray transfer while giving the same effort in the opposite direction to laud an HD-DVD title....

From High-Def Digest's Hulk HD-DVD Review:

'Hulk' looks fantastic on HD DVD. I'm tempted to give it five stars for picture quality, despite the fact that I'm sure someone will email me, complaining that I missed that one dead pixel in frame 38,394. But **** it, I will give it five stars

From High-Def Digest's The Devil Wears Prada Review:

Any complaints are relatively minor. Some of the outdoor scenes look a bit washed-out due some slightly overblown contrast; this is likely an intentional stylistic choice, so I can't knock it too harshly. There is also the occasional patch of video noise noticeable -- at least on my 70" Sony (I'm guessing it will be all but imperceptible on displays 50" or less). So knocking off a half a star for these nitpicks, 'The Devil Wears Prada' offers quite close to reference quality video.

You decide.

[JTK]

Why does anyone care what these people think and continue to go to their websites to begin with?

[theknub]

these guys will be out of a job when universal is out of titles to release

(yeah, i know overstating since paramount and warner are supporting both)

[Ascended_Saiyan]

I saw those reviews really early this morning. I was hoping someone would post this.

I think it got around about the average score of Blu-ray's audio/video quality (based off the star ratings from that site and others) being equal to HD DVD. Now, I think, he is out to shift the balance. This is disappointing. Now, I have to work that much harder to undo this with every person I come across that's read and believes this crap.

Has anyone realized that 5 star ratings seem to be reserved for Universal titles (except MI:III). Blu-ray exclusive titles seem to have a ceiling of 4.5 stars. He is trying to create a reason to go HD DVD over Blu-ray. This is crazy. Now I have the see the picture quality of the Hulk just to personally judge the overall quality compared to The Devil Wears Prada. That means I would need to purchase it and play it at the store. That damn Peter!

[Deciazulado]

A:

this is likely an intentional stylistic choice, so I can't knock it too harshly.

If it's intentional, you can't knock it. Period.

There is also the occasional patch of video noise noticeable -- at least on my 70" Sony (I'm guessing it will be all but imperceptible on displays 50" or less).

Haven't seen this movie or the BD, but films have grain/noise. Or does this reviewer never goes to a film theater and/or has never sat closer than like watching TV on them?

So knocking off a half a star for these nitpicks

Quarter of a star knocked off is not valid (See A)
Quarter of a star knocked off dubious (See B)

So how does that rate with 0.375 (0.25 + 0.125) stars more?
(multiply by 20 the new final rating and you have a school paper grade.)

[Chris Beveridge]

Ok, I took him to task for it. He either needs to be clearer about how his video portions of the review are done or make a change.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?t=990

[Ben]

I've noticed that he rarely particularly cares for any of the movies that he reviews. For instance, almost EVERY review gets a 3.5 out of 5 for the content. The highest review I've seen him give is 4 stars to Superman the Movie.

[Deciazulado]

Chris I click that link but i don't see you there. Maybe my Mac is broken? I only see him in that link...

[ProvenFlipper]

I think its funny to read his reviews... He will totally ream a HD-DVD film and then give it 4-4.5 stars, yet if the same was for a BD, he would give it 2.5-3. He gave Talladega Nights like 2.5 stars for PQ. The movie looks way better than that, but comparing it to other 4 star presentations, it deserved at least that. He blames it on overblown colors, which are there, but then admits he never saw it in the movie theater to see if it was directors intent. Peter has no credibility in my book. I ususally go by Chad's reviews anyway.

He can be prejudice all he wants because the average consumer doesn't go online and read reviews on BD before they buy them. Plus his prejudice doens't help the fact that there aren't any HD-DVD players on the shelves for customers, or the fact that HD-DVDs studio support is lacking.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Chris I click that link but i don't see you there. Maybe my Mac is broken? I only see him in that link...

Chris gave the post link. Here's the thread link

Peter did say this:

Any complaints are relatively minor. Some of the outdoor scenes look a bit washed-out due some slightly overblown contrast; this is likely an intentional stylistic choice, so I can't knock it too harshly. There is also the occasional patch of video noise noticeable -- at least on my 70" Sony (I'm guessing it will be all but imperceptible on displays 50" or less). So knocking off a half a star for these nitpicks, 'The Devil Wears Prada' offers quite close to reference quality video.

It's more an issue of whether those nitpicks are valid, rather than scoring. If a reviewer truelly sees something, then it shouldn't get a 5 out of 5.

But, the question is whether it was MPEG-2 -> Go looking for something to take 1/2 point off?

Gary

[Deciazulado]

Thanks Gary

And the way Chris brought it up is great, look forward to seeing a reply.

[theknub]

i think it's more that in one review he isn't inclined to give a 5/5 and he knows something is there (his comment in which he knows people will write in) and not being nitpicky vs something that he was nitpicky about that is just as good.

[Chris Beveridge]

The point I wanted to make in my post there isn't with that review specifically but it was a launching point to bring up his reviewing style. It needs to be clearer that stylistic choices that are made in the filming of the movie are impacting how he's reviewing the video. I can complain up and down all day that Aliens doesn't look good with all the grainy. But at the same time I can give it an 5 star video rating if it accurately portrays what was intended. Now, if it had all the grain cleaned up, that'd be a 0 star in my book.

It's always a slippery slope for one reviewer to take another to task for how they write so I'm being very cautious on it (and hoping others make the same point there to reinforce it). In my own reviews I try to separate the intent versus the encoding. I honestly don't care what a reviewer thinks of how the film was done in terms of pushed reds, oranges, blues, whatever. I want to know if the release is authored properly. I'm not getting that with his reviews at the moment.

[Spankey]

To be perfectly clear, I know there has to be a point where subjectiveness comes into reviewing a certain title. I said that I thought I preferred the look of Devil Wears Prada over Black Hawk Down. Part of that is because of the purity of the original image. It is not intentionally grainy like BHD, but that makes it all the more perfect. To say you didn't prefer the style of one shot in a movie, made up of hundreds and then find a way to knock a point (half point) and then say in another review..

despite the fact that I'm sure someone will email me, complaining that I missed that one dead pixel in frame 38,394. But **** it, I will give it five stars

tells me there is a bias. The same "**** it" attitude should be applied. Heck, I didn't really even want to watch this movie, but since my wife wanted it, I have it. The fact that I jumped around the disc looking at image after image because it looks that good, tells me something. It's as perfect as you can get.

[Spankey]

Oh..BTW...prejudice in the title should be changed to Bias.

[phloyd]

I think most people buy a movie because of the content. Sure it is always nice if the picture is reference quality but that is not why we buy the movie.

On the other hand, we might choose a format because on average the picture quality is better.

All said though Peter Bracke can review all he likes and may cause one or two hapless souls to go HD DVD but really the content is going to sway people much more towards one or the other and I think we will see more 'what the hell are these reviewers on about' responses as more HD DVD fans, confident in their superiority based on these reviews, actually try BD titles for themselves.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by sltmag

<snip>

tells me there is a bias.

The same "**** it" attitude should be applied.

That's basically my attitude these days towards HD-DVD zealots and biased hacks like these. It's the same attitude I've always had in life against anyone that lies.

I say again: Why does anyone waste their time or energy continuing to visit websites where you know you're going to see nothing but lies and misinformation?

You can argue on forums from here to eternity, but the only real way you can make a difference is with your wallet.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Chris Beveridge

The point I wanted to make in my post there isn't with that review specifically but it was a launching point to bring up his reviewing style. It needs to be clearer that stylistic choices that are made in the filming of the movie are impacting how he's reviewing the video.

Yes, I see your point. Don't let complaints about the film and the filmmaker show up in the video score. That's what the "The Movie Itself" score is for.

But, he complained about "There is also the occasional patch of video noise noticeable ". I thought that meant an encoding issue. If it did, then knocking something off is OK (a perfect score should be for "perfect" (as is possible in the real word) shouldn't it?). But, if that too was merely part of the underlying source, then as you say, he's knocking points for the wrong thing.

Gary

[Chris Beveridge]

Therein lies the rub; as the filming technology changes the end results are going to look different. Take Click for example. According to those in the know, i.e. those with first hand experience that I'll trust, the BD release with its noise is the same as what's in the master. It's because of the particular new brand of HD camera that's being used. So the authoring of the disc, noise and all, is "transparent to the master" yet it is widely derided as bad looking video. But if that's how it was filmed and everyone signed off on it - even if they don't know that in the home video-future market that it won't look as pristine as it might on a large theatrical venue - then that's how it's supposed to look.

We're going to see more and more of this as we get into older films as well. Look at how VC-1 vs AVC/MPEG2 are handling film grain. While some older films will look much cleaner when done through VC-1 the grain isn't re-introduced properly which will cause different schools of thought and review. Fans of newer films will like the cleaner look while others will lament the loss of a film-like feel to the presentation.

It's whole new ground, much like how home video reviewing had to change from VHS/LD to DVD. A lot of people are very comfortable in how they've done things in DVD and haven't started to re-think it yet, which is why I'm looking forward to the new crop of reviewers that will emerge from this and shake up the status quo.

[Deciazulado]

Yes, there's a difference in reviewing the film's technical quality, and reviewing the disc/transfer itself, which has been accentuated/brought to the fore with High Definition, because now we have a medium that may not impose a limit to the quality of the original image, so we have the question when we review a BD disc, is it real or is it Memorex, err I mean, is the quality not 1080p Digital Perfect because the film negative (or digital file) is like that, or is it not perfect because the transfer wasn't 100% "transparent"?

That should be a separate issue: Like "the film image is terrible, but the disc shows all there is to it so it's the definitive version", vs "the movie had great cinematography but the disc transfer ruined it, wait for another edition".

As most reviewers haven't seen the original digital file from a CGI movie, Digitalcamera movie, or Digital Intermediate movie, or a reference Answer Print struck directly from the Eastman Camera Original or Nitrate Original B/W Negative, or a Technicolor IB Print made from the Technicolor B/W Negative of the movie/disc they are reviewing they can't compare directly and have to rely on their years of experience (if they have it) watching the 4th generation film prints on their local theater, and therefore use their intelligence to evaluate what's missing or not

So as long as the disc transfer looks as good as the theatrical print with all its 4th generation "flaws" (grain, projector lens-4th generation copy softness, not complete purity in colors, etc) the disc should get a good/great review. If it looks better, closer to or as good as the negative, it should get an excellent review!

Nobody has seen how good a film truly looks because nobody has telescopic Superman negative vision eyes to look directly to the tiny 1 inch wide image residing in the negative. Nobody, that is, except for those that have scanned the negative directly optimally in High Res and seen the resulting high resolution digital file, or those working with Digital Film-making files. And maybe those who've seen BD transfers that do them justice..

As I've said before, the negatives, if properly preserved, can look better than any version you've seen in the theaters because they are not copies. It's like the difference from listening to the actual 15 inch per second Original Master Tape of the Beatles vs a cassette (theatrical print) or even a direct dub (answer print) . You don't have to noise-reduce to death the Master and take all the fine detail with it, to get something that sounds good, excellent, or better because the Master is the best there is. A little hiss/noise/grain in the original is part of it. DNR filtering it a little without losing detail (it can be done) may be ok. Bleaching it till it looks synthetically clean may not. Nor shaving the high frequencies (fine detail) to make it look both "cleaner" and easier to encode for lack of space.

We have a digital 1080p canvas that can give excellent master quality if handled correctly (Just look at any 1000 pixel tall image you can find on the web. Some are ok, some are astounding) The 1000p container is astounding. What you get from it depending on what you put on it.