Zulu - Blu-ray Forum

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 12:13 AM

Just received Zulu from Amazon UK. Not available in US or Canada. Audio is weak but the PQ is amazing.

Dubstar · 11-10-2009, 01:04 AM

yes I agree the PQ IS amazing!!! the reds and blues are eye searing at times (which is a good thing IMO)

Clark Kent · 11-10-2009, 01:13 AM

A touch of DNR, but really a substantial upgrade over any prior version.

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

A touch of DNR, but really a substantial upgrade over any prior version.

I saw Zulu for the first time 34 years ago. I still think it is an awesome movie. No CGI, ILM. Btw, what is DNR?

Zippyfan · 11-10-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmwone

I saw Zulu for the first time 34 years ago. I still think it is an awesome movie. No CGI, ILM. Btw, what is DNR?

Digital Noise Reduction. Which i believe is how much Grain appears

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zippyfan

Digital Noise Reduction. Which i believe is how much Grain appears

Thanks!

blu_sharpy · 11-10-2009, 05:00 PM

DNR is the removal of grain to make the film look smooth and like it was made yesterday. Unfortunately this is rarely the case as many films turn out looking awful (Gladiator for example) with very little detail intact and many actors looking like waxworks.

IMO, Zulu is one of the worst discs for the sheer amount of DNR applied but everyone will have a different opinion.

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 05:30 PM

blu, makes sence to me now. I have not seen Gladiator on BD. 300 & Godfather comes to mind. Both have a lot of grain.

General Vyper · 11-10-2009, 06:00 PM

Have they fixed the acting?

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Vyper

Have they fixed the acting?

Acting? Pertaining to who's?

blu_sharpy · 11-10-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmwone

blu, makes sence to me now. I have not seen Gladiator on BD. 300 & Godfather comes to mind. Both have a lot of grain.

The grain in The Godfather is purely down to the type of film stock which I believe was 35mm which beholds a fair amount of grain.
300 was shot completely using green screens and the grain was added in during post production under supervision of Zack Snyder giving the film the grainy look that many people seem to dislike (although that was his intention).

Hope this helped

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

The grain in The Godfather is purely down to the type of film stock which I believe was 35mm which beholds a fair amount of grain.
300 was shot completely using green screens and the grain was added in during post production under supervision of Zack Snyder giving the film the grainy look that many people seem to dislike (although that was his intention).

Hope this helped

Thanks alot for that explaination blu.

General Vyper · 11-10-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmwone

Acting? Pertaining to who's?

Well I remember Caine being particularly bad in that movie, and some of the other guys were pretty ropey too.

bmwone · 11-10-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Vyper

Well I remember Caine being particularly bad in that movie, and some of the other guys were pretty ropey too.

Actually, Zulu was M. Caine's first movie role. Jack Hawkins a "ropey" actor? Hawkins is rather a famous British actor.

It was a 1964 movie remember.

richieb1971 · 11-11-2009, 08:01 AM

There were scenes in that movie that looked a tad silly. I'm not going to knock it though because its a well made film of that era.

I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm.

Everyone championed Braveheart, but to my eye's it didn't look that much better than Gladiator, although I would say it was a tad better.

bmwone · 11-11-2009, 12:11 PM

I watched it in detail and I did see a couple things. Dead British soldiers were moving. Also clearly dead Zulu warriors were breathing. Those particular rifles didn't have the range they showed. Yes it was a well made movie for that era. With the flaws.

I for one like a movie to be sharp and clean. Just my opinion

General Vyper · 11-11-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmwone

Actually, Zulu was M. Caine's first movie role. Jack Hawkins a "ropey" actor? Hawkins is rather a famous British actor.

It was a 1964 movie remember.

That's something I don't get as an argument, "It's old so you have to forgive the dodgy acting" - why exactly? Some dramatic performances from that era are awesome, yet other stuff looks like 2 wooden dolls reading lines off a board. Badly. Bad acting is bad acting no matter what year it happened.

blu_sharpy · 11-11-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richieb1971

I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm.

Companies think that applying DNR to films should made them look better. As I stated before this is most definately not the case as many titles with DNR lose the fine detail that they should have and go from looking film-like to some nasty smoothed over waxwork of a film

bmwone · 11-11-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Vyper

That's something I don't get as an argument, "It's old so you have to forgive the dodgy acting" - why exactly? Some dramatic performances from that era are awesome, yet other stuff looks like 2 wooden dolls reading lines off a board. Badly. Bad acting is bad acting no matter what year it happened.

Was'nt really trying to make an argument.
Guess I should not have added that line "It was a 1964 movie remember."
Your right bad acting is bad acting.

bmwone · 11-11-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

Companies think that applying DNR to films should made them look better. As I stated before this is most definately not the case as many titles with DNR lose the fine detail that they should have and go from looking film-like to some nasty smoothed over waxwork of a film

Don't you think "companies" would know they are loosing detail when applying DNR. Or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

11-10-2009, 12:13 AM	#1
bmwone Active Member Member since:Mar 2009 Location:Toronto Canada Home Theater Gallery:35 Blu-ray collection:191 Blu-ray reviews:5 Trading Score:4	Zulu Just received Zulu from Amazon UK. Not available in US or Canada. Audio is weak but the PQ is amazing. Last edited by bmwone; 11-10-2009 at 12:10 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Zulu Has Arrived !	United Kingdom and Ireland	Kyot	58	02-02-2018 04:36 PM
where can I find the best price for Zulu	United Kingdom and Ireland	Deke Rivers	13	01-16-2010 08:40 PM
ZULU - Looked fantastic	Movies	Bullseye	20	07-02-2008 04:50 PM

11-10-2009, 01:04 AM	#2
Dubstar Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Jun 2008 Location:down at Fraggle Rock Home Theater Gallery:1 4K collection:201 Blu-ray collection:1953 DVD collection:304 MA collection:4 Digital collection:33 Trading Score:29	yes I agree the PQ IS amazing!!! the reds and blues are eye searing at times (which is a good thing IMO)

11-10-2009, 01:13 AM	#3
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	A touch of DNR, but really a substantial upgrade over any prior version.

11-10-2009, 05:00 PM	#7
blu_sharpy Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Nov 2009 Location:United Kingdom Blu-ray collection:743 DVD collection:11 Blu-ray reviews: 4 Trading Score:1	DNR is the removal of grain to make the film look smooth and like it was made yesterday. Unfortunately this is rarely the case as many films turn out looking awful (Gladiator for example) with very little detail intact and many actors looking like waxworks. IMO, Zulu is one of the worst discs for the sheer amount of DNR applied but everyone will have a different opinion.

11-10-2009, 05:30 PM	#8
bmwone Active Member Member since:Mar 2009 Location:Toronto Canada Home Theater Gallery:35 Blu-ray collection:191 Blu-ray reviews:5 Trading Score:4	blu, makes sence to me now. I have not seen Gladiator on BD. 300 & Godfather comes to mind. Both have a lot of grain.

11-10-2009, 06:00 PM	#9
General Vyper Active Member Member since:Mar 2009	Have they fixed the acting?

11-11-2009, 08:01 AM	#15
richieb1971 Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:89 Blu-ray collection:706 Trading Score:16	There were scenes in that movie that looked a tad silly. I'm not going to knock it though because its a well made film of that era. I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm. Everyone championed Braveheart, but to my eye's it didn't look that much better than Gladiator, although I would say it was a tad better.

11-11-2009, 12:11 PM	#16
bmwone Active Member Member since:Mar 2009 Location:Toronto Canada Home Theater Gallery:35 Blu-ray collection:191 Blu-ray reviews:5 Trading Score:4	I watched it in detail and I did see a couple things. Dead British soldiers were moving. Also clearly dead Zulu warriors were breathing. Those particular rifles didn't have the range they showed. Yes it was a well made movie for that era. With the flaws. I for one like a movie to be sharp and clean. Just my opinion

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals