How do you rate Picture Quality? Objectively or Subjectively?

[JJ]

Let me explain what I mean first:

Personally, I would say "Objectively" to mean "True to Source" - i.e., the movie transfer effectively displays what the movie looks like with minimal processing in the transfer.

I.e., say - if you dislike the use of digital noise reduction; and if you are not bothered by watching 28 Days Later and Predator on Blu-ray. I don't mind watching those at all - and I don't think to myself, "This is horrid! I can't watch this" like some have started to say.

I think what some don't understand is that Blu-ray is not meant to take source movie material (albeit, we've already discussed this before) and bring it up to look as HD as possible. For example, people who complain about transfers all the time, I've seen some ridiculous posts about people seeing DNR when it isn't even there anymore - simply because they've never seen the original theatrical release. After the Patton and Gangs of New York fiascoes, this problem seems even more prevalent. I think that the Patton release looks fantastic, in my opinion, DNR aside.

I would say "Subjectively" to mean comparing all on the same line, transfer/film source aside - you consider Troy, say, a title that divides our humble roster of forum members into those who say "It looks fantastic!" and those who say "The actors look like wax models and it's a DNR mess!"

Troy was the first title I saw on Blu-ray in my own home and was taken aback by how sharp and grain-free it looked, and for a period of time I could say I was subjective and hated that grain I would see with a passion. I couldn't have seen There Will Be Blood or 28 Days Later 7-8 months ago without turning them off or thinking there was something wrong with my discs! Now, I appreciate them for the movies themselves and that they stay true to their source and we see them as they were intended. In 28 Days, the end was filmed on actual film, and we all saw that it clearly wasn't the transfers fault.

So. What are you? Honestly - because flip-flops belong on the beach, and I've seen some of your posts. If you are not bothered by DNR, don't hate on it. I am not bothered by it. I thought Troy looked great, and still do. If you are bothered by film grain (again, revisiting an old topic, apologies), I'm sorry, but there's nothing you can do about it unless you want to reshoot the film yourself!!

[Beta Man]

Smails: "how do you measure yourself with other players"

Ty Webb: "by height?"



honestly, I think I just measure it by the overall clarity, tone, sharpness, etc. etc. etc.. compared to other Blu-Rays, and I usually make a point to compare catalog titles to their Standard DVD counter-parts.....

House of Flying Daggers, minimal improvement over Standard DVD....

2001 PHENOMENAL upgrade from DVD, and a very clear/concise Blu-Ray to compare with the best that new releases has to offer.....

[Eternalnow]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

Let me explain what I mean first:

Personally, I would say "Objectively" to mean "True to Source" - i.e., the movie transfer effectively displays what the movie looks like with minimal processing in the transfer.

I.e., say - if you dislike the use of digital noise reduction; and if you are not bothered by watching 28 Days Later and Predator and Blu-ray. I don't mind watching those at all - and I don't think to myself, "This is horrid! I can't watch this" like some have started to say.

I think what some don't understand is that Blu-ray is not meant to take source movie material (albeit, we've already discussed this before) and bring it up to look as HD as possible. For example, people who complain about transfers all the time, I've seen some ridiculous posts about people seeing DNR when it isn't even there anymore - simply because they've never seen the original theatrical release. After the Patton and Gangs of New York fiascoes, this problem seems even more prevalent. I think that the Patton release looks fantastic, in my opinion, DNR aside.

I would say "Subjectively" to mean comparing all on the same line, transfer/film source aside - you consider Troy, say, a title that divides our humble roster of forum members into those who say "It looks fantastic!" and those who say "The actors look like wax models and it's a DNR mess!"

Troy was the first title I saw on Blu-ray in my own home and was taken aback by how sharp and grain-free it looked, and for a period of time I could say I was subjective and hated that grain I would see with a passion. I couldn't have seen There Will Be Blood or 28 Days Later 7-8 months ago without turning them off or thinking there was something wrong with my discs! Now, I appreciate them for the movies themselves and that they stay true to their source and we see them as they were intended. In 28 Days, the end was filmed on actual film, and we all saw that it clearly wasn't the transfers fault.



So. What are you? Honestly - because flip-flops belong on the beach, and I've seen some of your posts. If you are not bothered by DNR, don't hate on it. I am not bothered by it. I thought Troy looked great, and still do. If you are bothered by film grain (again, revisiting an old topic, apologies), I'm sorry, but there's nothing you can do about it unless you want to reshoot the film yourself!!

Not aimed at you directly, but in general:
How can you be so sure you know exactly how the film should look? Can you expertly recall every single film you saw in the theater and match it to the Blu Ray? Can you be sure that the equipment used in the theater was correct, used properly or in working order? Do you know what the director intended when he and the DP filmed it? Has the director explicitly expressed his opinion on whether he approves of the film and the Blu Ray?

Unless you know those factors, its all subjective. Every review site and every person who views a Blu Ray disc or a theatrical presentation will regard the PQ in terms of their own subjectivity and their own perception. There is simply no other way to judge picture quality. We can only judge it based on whether it looks good to *us*. Maybe some directors like EE and DNR, maybe some directors decided that they wanted grain removed for the DVD and Blu Ray release. Without knowing the actual director's and their actual intent and seeing the film negative, we will never know.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

Not aimed at you directly, but in general:
How can you be so sure you know exactly how the film should look? Can you expertly recall every single film you saw in the theater and match it to the Blu Ray? Can you be sure that the equipment used in the theater was correct, used properly or in working order? Do you know what the director intended when he and the DP filmed it? Has the director explicitly expressed his opinion on whether he approves of the film and the Blu Ray?

Unless you know those factors, its all subjective. Every review site and every person who views a Blu Ray disc or a theatrical presentation will regard the PQ in terms of their own subjectivity and their own perception. There is simply no other way to judge picture quality. We can only judge it based on whether it looks good to *us*. Maybe some directors like EE and DNR, maybe some directors decided that they wanted grain removed for the DVD and Blu Ray release. Without knowing the actual director's and their actual intent and seeing the film negative, we will never know.

That's exactly one of my points!

[BaronVH]

First of all some of the older movies need work to get them in decent shape. A lot of people were really upset at the Longest Day, and I have seen the comparisons with the overuse of DNR; however, with the exception of one scene, I thought the movie looked excellent. I also have no problems with the look of Patton, but the soundtrack has a very low buzzing that drives me crazy.

That being said, it is all subjective for me. I know that older movies will require compromises to improve the visuals. That is fine with me as long as they do not remove grain that was intentional. Assassination of Jesse James was supposed to look the way it was. 28 Days Later was also the director's intent to be grainy. That is fine, keep it that way, but I know that concessions will have to be made in the older titles.

Most of the movies that I have seen in the theater look better on Blu-ray than they did in the theater. Almost all of the movies that I have seen certainly have sounded better than in the theater. If all are released exactly as they were in the theater, I would have to watch a lot of movies in 1.0 sound. I don't want that. If removing defects from the film makes an image look a little flat, then that is OK. But please don't go overboard.

[Eternalnow]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

That's exactly one of my points!

Heck yea! Glad we agree on that! I got all excited when I saw this thread because I just get so annoyed when people toss around 'director's intent' like they know what it is.
I mean, obviously compression artifacts, DNR and EE can be quite intrusive sometimes and they can downright ruin the picture. But, intrusive grain can ruin the experience as well...I wonder if there will ever be a delicate balance between the two.

[Eternalnow]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

First of all some of the older movies need work to get them in decent shape. A lot of people were really upset at the Longest Day, and I have seen the comparisons with the overuse of DNR; however, with the exception of one scene, I thought the movie looked excellent. I also have no problems with the look of Patton, but the soundtrack has a very low buzzing that drives me crazy.

That being said, it is all subjective for me. I know that older movies will require compromises to improve the visuals. That is fine with me as long as they do not remove grain that was intentional. Assassination of Jesse James was supposed to look the way it was. 28 Days Later was also the director's intent to be grainy. That is fine, keep it that way, but I know that concessions will have to be made in the older titles.

Most of the movies that I have seen in the theater look better on Blu-ray than they did in the theater. Almost all of the movies that I have seen certainly have sounded better than in the theater. If all are released exactly as they were in the theater, I would have to watch a lot of movies in 1.0 sound. I don't want that. If removing defects from the film makes an image look a little flat, then that is OK. But please don't go overboard.

Oh yeah, when I saw the first seven minutes of The Dark Knight in the theater it looked really dark and blurry compared to the eye-popping 7 minute teaser on the Batman Begin's Blu Ray release.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

Oh yeah, when I saw the first seven minutes of The Dark Knight in the theater it looked really dark and blurry compared to the eye-popping 7 minute teaser on the Batman Begin's Blu Ray release.

Was it a regular theatre? I saw it in IMAX and it looked great.

[DeeEmEcks]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

Oh yeah, when I saw the first seven minutes of The Dark Knight in the theater it looked really dark and blurry compared to the eye-popping 7 minute teaser on the Batman Begin's Blu Ray release.

Absolutely, looked garbage compared to Blu (note I was normal theater)

But in regards to 28 days later, and movies like that, it looks sooooooooooooooo much brighter and clearer than previous incarnations, so just because it's filmed the way it is i would hate to see people bashing it's PQ. It looks phenomenal for how it was filmed and just better than ever before. In fact, even the worst looking movies in my opinion look soooo much better than SD-DVD.

When people are saying the blu looks just like my sd-dvd i figure they must be high. (for any movie that is)

[SS316SRV]

My criteria:

Do I like the picture quality? Yes or no.

Am I upset that I bought this disc based on the picture quality? Yes or no.

The Fugitive is the worst disc in my collection and the one that I am most upset at owning.

[Canada]

I take into account how old the film is first of all, and what the directors intentions were for the look of the film. I mean if Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down had vibrent colours and no grain the PQ would almost be ruined. As for the age of the film I am excpecting a lot more out of Transformers on Blu Ray than say Top Gun on Blu Ray. The video quality that got me was The Italian Job it was the grainiest Blu Ray I had ever seen it looked like I was watching a bloody VHS tape it was terrible PQ. The Terminator was also quite bad in the PQ department but I also have to remember it's a 24 year old film shot on a relitivly low budget so I assume the film stock is not that good. That's why the Terminator would rate a **.5 and the Italian Job would rate a * for PQ.

[alexakajeff]

I don't understand what you mean???

[GGX]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

Maybe some directors like EE and DNR, maybe some directors decided that they wanted grain removed for the DVD and Blu Ray release.

EE and DNR are not a normal process of film.

Also, many Blu-ray releases have EE and DNR added when the DVD version did not. There are also DVD releases that have EE and DNR when the Blu-ray version does not. This means these two processes are being added to the disc versions.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

Oh yeah, when I saw the first seven minutes of The Dark Knight in the theater it looked really dark and blurry compared to the eye-popping 7 minute teaser on the Batman Begin's Blu Ray release.

When I watched it on the IMAX the theater's LFE channel was way off. It made it very hard to understand dialog. Also the projection booth got the film dirty and caused artifacts to be very apparent on the screen. When I saw it on a regular theater, it was perfect. But the first seven minutes looked and sounded great at home. That being said, I am certainly not bashing the theater experience. I am first and foremost a lover of film, so my home theater will never replace a theater (until I win the lottery and get a massive projection system at home).

[Slec]

To be completely honest, when I watch movies there are so many things I'm looking at, I can't say that I look for DNR or EE (and my tv size:viewing distance ratio are probably the reason why). I can deal with grain and appreciate its usage, but what really wows me is color. I was floored by the reds in Dracula (won't beat a dead horse), the greens in Predator, and the any color present in 2001. I love the added contrast and detail provided by blu-ray.

I won't pretend to have the knowledge that many have. I guess, subjectively, I'm wowed by pretty colors, shiny things, and dark blacks. If only I had a plasma