Blu-ray Review Recommendation?

[Kryptonian]

Is there a location of a website or thread that someone can point me to? What I'm looking for is a comparison of what websites use when they're discussing blu-ray quality. They often use terms in their reviews that I'm not sure what they mean but I thought there might be a website that can define these words and possibly show examples as well. For example when they talk about "blacks" and how they're supposed to look. Does anyone know of any such sites?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Kryptonian

Is there a location of a website or thread that someone can point me to? What I'm looking for is a comparison of what websites use when they're discussing blu-ray quality. They often use terms in their reviews that I'm not sure what they mean but I thought there might be a website that can define these words and possibly show examples as well. For example when they talk about "blacks" and how they're supposed to look. Does anyone know of any such sites?

It would be easier to answer your questions directly either in this thread or through PM. I have personally been writing BD reviews for nearly 4 years now. I am the official BD reviewer for two other websites and I also post my reviews here. I have a reviewed somewhere around 400 BDs so I should be able to answer anything you throw at me.

[MifuneFan]

The site does have a glossary for some common terms used around the site and reviews, but more definitely should be added to it to explain certain terms that are found in reviews and/or info about BD specs:

https://www.blu-ray.com/glossary/

[42041]

Might as well ask here if you're confused about something...

[MifuneFan]

There is also this forum guide showing what some anomalies look like:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...62&postcount=1

[Kryptonian]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, from the MIB3 Review:

Black levels are superb, shadow detail is faultless, and flesh tones are true

From The Rocketeer,

While crush is a minor factor, ringing is apparent from time to time, and textures aren't always crystal clear, this is a more than commendable approximation of The Rocketeer Johnston and Narita prepped for theatrical release in 1991. Colors are sometimes bleak, sometimes bold, but always satisfying; select primaries light up the screen, while skintones are (mostly) well-saturated; deep comic-ink blacks effectively plunge the image into darkness; and any contrast inconsistencies and wavering I noticed seemed to be inherited from the source. Don't brace yourself for a hazy mess either. Although filmic softness certainly plays a role in the proceedings, edge definition is relatively impressive, many a closeup fares quite well, some fine textures still manage to make their way into the mix, and the film's velvety veneer of grain, though a touch unwieldy on occasion, is present and accounted for. As to the encode itself, I didn't catch sight of any significant anomalies -- artifacting, banding, aliasing or otherwise -- and the only thing that struck me as out of sorts, aside from the aforementioned crush and ringing, involves some limited delineation shortcomings.

Some of this stuff is what I'm talking about. Are there examples to show what it's supposed to like and bad examples as well?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Kryptonian

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, from the MIB3 Review:

Black levels are superb, shadow detail is faultless, and flesh tones are true

From The Rocketeer,

While crush is a minor factor, ringing is apparent from time to time, and textures aren't always crystal clear, this is a more than commendable approximation of The Rocketeer Johnston and Narita prepped for theatrical release in 1991. Colors are sometimes bleak, sometimes bold, but always satisfying; select primaries light up the screen, while skintones are (mostly) well-saturated; deep comic-ink blacks effectively plunge the image into darkness; and any contrast inconsistencies and wavering I noticed seemed to be inherited from the source. Don't brace yourself for a hazy mess either. Although filmic softness certainly plays a role in the proceedings, edge definition is relatively impressive, many a closeup fares quite well, some fine textures still manage to make their way into the mix, and the film's velvety veneer of grain, though a touch unwieldy on occasion, is present and accounted for. As to the encode itself, I didn't catch sight of any significant anomalies -- artifacting, banding, aliasing or otherwise -- and the only thing that struck me as out of sorts, aside from the aforementioned crush and ringing, involves some limited delineation shortcomings.

Some of this stuff is what I'm talking about. Are there examples to show what it's supposed to like and bad examples as well?

Ringing usually refers to "halos" around edges in the image, it's usually an artifact of excessive artificial image sharpening/edge enhancement. Here's a rather bad case: https://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/1365_7_1080p.jpg

Black crush generally refers to when the darker parts of the image are just solid black and have no detail. Personally I think it's a bit of a bogus criticism, since it could just be an artistic choice.

Banding means that color transitions that should be smooth instead have visible "steps", like this http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum/...ransparent.jpg

The rest of the terms you highlighted are just the reviewer using various vague terms to describe whatever he's seeing and don't have a consistent definition on these boards.