Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm generally with you on scoring for Reach, but I must say I do still enjoy it a hell of a lot more than Mass Effect 1. The level design in Reach is a fantastic return to the feel of Halo 1, but the game just feels unfinished in certain areas. A/V polish is there and nothing seems glitchy, but all the behaviors just don't cut it. Not an area I ever expected to see Bungie fall behind their own standard. Maybe all the good AI programmers have left or been diverted to the next project.

The only problem I had with the AI (and it was frustrating at times) was when I was on a vehicle and wanted my AI-mates to get on the vehicle and they wouldn't get on. Usually I would give up and just move on without them.

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

Here is some news that will make you happy.

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/pc/news...32219817514003

[BStecke]

Early word on BTTF is pretty lackluster . . . EE, DNR, etc. Any comments?

[Jeff Kleist]

I'll leave that to Bill, watch the Bits

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Early word on BTTF is pretty lackluster . . . EE, DNR, etc. Any comments?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'll leave that to Bill, watch the Bits

Yes, wait for a trustworthy source, not the AVS nutcases who don't even purchase Blu-rays and just criticize them (>cough<Kram>cough<)

[Mr. Cinema]

If this set came from another studio, I would be skeptical of the early bad buzz. But since it's Universal, I have a feeling we may see alot of 3 star video grades.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

If this set came from another studio, I would be skeptical of the early bad buzz. But since it's Universal, I have a feeling we may see alot of 3 star video grades.

What buzz? You have the same small group of lunatics at AVS handing out verdicts without having seen the disc, but making "credible" comparisons to broadcasts, etc. These are the same people (Kram, Oink, BsRoz, etc). who came to the conclusion that Criterion's release of The Thin Red Line is garbage.

I am sorry but you of all people should know better

Pro-B

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

If this set came from another studio, I would be skeptical of the early bad buzz. But since it's Universal, I have a feeling we may see alot of 3 star video grades.

For the screenshots Ive seen, the bluray was better than the HDTV version.

The people claiming these "problems" with the bluray are full of crap.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...5377/picture:1

Look at the mole on Doc Browns face and the wrinkles on his forehead. I dare anyone to try and tell me the HDTV version is the superior one.

[Jeff Kleist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11506354

WB has canceled the 3D version of Potter 7.0, because they "couldn't finish the conversion in time".

Translation- They've finally figured out that quick and dirty fake 3D is going to kill the golden goose before it really has a chance to get going

Hopefully they've given up on the whole idea, but I'm sure that a suprise 3D version will pop up just short of part 2 for a few weeks anyway.

[neo_reloaded]

The HD rip is hardly amazing, being both 720p, and presumably at a low bitrate as are all broadcast versions. The comment wasn't necessarily that the HD broadcast version as-is is superior in all ways to the Blu-ray - merely that it is superior in SOME ways, and not terribly inferior in others, as evidence that the BD version isn't all it could be.

Yes, the BD version does show some considerable improvements in detail (as should any competent 1080p version when compared with 720p). But there are also bits of detail lost in the BD version that are evidence of digital tampering, and the general comment that the entirety of the BD screens look digital and processed when compared with the HD rip. And even without the HD rip to compare against, looking at the BD version in a total vacuum, it's hard to argue that it looks anywhere near a brand-new film scan as was supposedly performed.

I haven't seen the disc in motion, I haven't seen a theatrical print, etc. etc. etc. so I don't intend this to be gospel. Maybe I'm totally wrong, who knows. But I look at the BD screens and it looks tampered with. I look at the BD screens and it doesn't look anything like some of the discs I know are the result of brand new film scans. I absolutely plan on watching the discs before forming a final opinion, but things don't look promising. If it's as bad as the screenshots look - well, it isn't a disaster, just another old Universal master with small amounts of unneeded digital work. But it's disappointing after all the hype about brand new top-of-the-line scans supposedly being done.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

The HD rip is hardly amazing, being both 720p, and presumably at a low bitrate as are all broadcast versions. The comment wasn't necessarily that the HD broadcast version as-is is superior in all ways to the Blu-ray - merely that it is superior in SOME ways, and not terribly inferior in others, as evidence that the BD version isn't all it could be.

Yes, the BD version does show some considerable improvements in detail (as should any competent 1080p version when compared with 720p). But there are also bits of detail lost in the BD version that are evidence of digital tampering, and the general comment that the entirety of the BD screens look digital and processed when compared with the HD rip. And even without the HD rip to compare against, looking at the BD version in a total vacuum, it's hard to argue that it looks anywhere near a brand-new film scan as was supposedly performed.

I haven't seen the disc in motion, I haven't seen a theatrical print, etc. etc. etc. so I don't intend this to be gospel. Maybe I'm totally wrong, who knows. But I look at the BD screens and it looks tampered with. I look at the BD screens and it doesn't look anything like some of the discs I know are the result of brand new film scans. I absolutely plan on watching the discs before forming a final opinion, but things don't look promising. If it's as bad as the screenshots look - well, it isn't a disaster, just another old Universal master with small amounts of unneeded digital work. But it's disappointing after all the hype about brand new top-of-the-line scans supposedly being done.

And thats the problem.

Neither you or I have ANY idea what the original print looked like. How can you say that these screenshots are representative of the actual master?

I am not specifically calling you out here, but I am just sick to death of all these comments on picture quality when most of these people know NOTHING about how these films were shot or how they were intended to look.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I am not specifically calling you out here, but I am just sick to death of all these comments on picture quality when most of these people know NOTHING about how these films were shot or how they were intended to look.

Is that some great mystery? They were shot and printed on 35mm film. There's only so much you can do in the photochemical realm. They would look like 35mm film.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

What buzz? You have the same small group of lunatics at AVS handing out verdicts without having seen the disc, but making "credible" comparisons to broadcasts, etc. These are the same people (Kram, Oink, BsRoz, etc). who came to the conclusion that Criterion's release of The Thin Red Line is garbage.

I am sorry but you of all people should know better

Pro-B

Actually to be fair, Oink chimed in and gave THE THIN RED LINE big praise over there. It seems there's one guy in particular who's been going on and on and on about the Blu-ray because he's deemed its ABR to be too low, but most folks in that thread have not been agreeing with him.

Vincent

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by merrick97

And thats the problem.

Neither you or I have ANY idea what the original print looked like. How can you say that these screenshots are representative of the actual master?

I am not specifically calling you out here, but I am just sick to death of all these comments on picture quality when most of these people know NOTHING about how these films were shot or how they were intended to look.

Well to be honest, I'm sick of comments from you that are basically the exact same "trust the companies / directors since they know more about the film than you." It gets old. I was going to comment on your post in my original but I decided not to - but since you're now repeating exactly what I had a problem with in the first place, I feel I might as well.

I'm allowed to have an opinion that doesn't toe the company line. I don't need to have seen the camera negative to make a comparison between two things and decide which looks more natural to me, or look at something in a vacuum and state whether it looks natural or not. I don't need to have seen the shoot, the transfer, the mastering, and the encoding to be able to form an opinion about the final product. Humans are gifted with something called common sense, and the ability to use past examples and general knowledge to form intelligent opinions about something new. I'm not a computer comparing pixel A to pixel B and outputting whether they are the same or not. I am making a subjective analysis, and I have a vast array of other films from the time period, other Blu-rays with masters ranging from abysmal to excellent, and just general common sense again to help me do so.

If Lowry did a full de-graining and re-graining (as done with Aliens), would I be the person to talk to to get an opinion on whether they accurately matched the cheap 80's film stock vs. later generation 90's stock? No, probably not. But can I make relatively simple judgments like "does this look natural, or does it look like it has had EE and sharpening applied"? Yes, I feel confident I can at least make a stab at it. And if you truly believe I can't, then to be consistent you must also completely distrust ALL BD reviews not coming from those with direct experience with film. You shouldn't trust Bill Hunt, or Jeff, or pretty much any blu-ray.com reviewer or highdefdigest reviewer or anyone of the like. Hell, how can you even say "See I told you to trust in Cameron" with regard to the Aliens BD? You haven't seen the film so you have no idea what it's SUPPOSED to look like - so your opinion is based solely on your trust in Cameron, and should be exactly the same now as it was before the Aliens BD screens came out. You can't say "See, it does look good - Cameron was right." You can only say "Cameron knows best, so this BD, which I can't subjectively judge for myself, MUST be right. This MUST be how it's supposed to look."

Am I presenting my opinion as gospel, or going into hyperbolics? No, I'm not. So stop crapping on everyone who dares to make up their own minds.

[Jeff Kleist]

Is that some great mystery? They were shot and printed on 35mm film. There's only so much you can do in the photochemical realm. They would look like 35mm film.

The variations on stocks and processing, filtering, you name it are staggaring. There is no "film look" that can be so generalized. For example Minority Report's look is achieved chemically, and replicated in the digital realm for consistancy.

Here's what I suggest. Anyone who wants to make a meaningful comparison on the current master, go see it during the AMC Theaters screenings (October 25th and I think 1 or 2 more times). I don't know if it's going to be a satellite multicast or an actual on the hard drive showing, but it will ceratinly give a you a good big look at it. Then you can make your own determination how it looks, in motion, on the kind of screen and in the environment it was always meant to be seen on.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The variations on stocks and processing, filtering, you name it are staggaring. There is no "film look" that can be so generalized. For example Minority Report's look is achieved chemically, and replicated in the digital realm for consistancy.

Here's what I suggest. Anyone who wants to make a meaningful comparison on the current master, go see it during the AMC Theaters screenings (October 25th and I think 1 or 2 more times). I don't know if it's going to be a satellite multicast or an actual on the hard drive showing, but it will ceratinly give a you a good big look at it. Then you can make your own determination how it looks, in motion, on the kind of screen and in the environment it was always meant to be seen on.

Fair enough.


Neo, I don't have a problem with your opinion at all and I am sorry my post made it seem like it was a bash on you. I am just tired of seeing people make judgements on things when they haven't even seen the actual film yet. I am pretty confident that not one of the AVS scientists has actually seen the bluray.

My main problem is this:

I feel that now more and more people instead of actually WATCHING THE DAMN FILM and being able to appreciate the significant improvement it offers over dvd the enthusiasts now get out their microscopes and go out of their way to find things wrong with the look of the film and then cherry pick the worst examples. The thing is that most of this stuff is stuff that most people (even enthusiasts) would never notice.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I feel that now more and more people instead of actually WATCHING THE DAMN FILM and being able to appreciate the significant improvement it offers over dvd the enthusiasts now get out their microscopes and go out of their way to find things wrong with the look of the film and then cherry pick the worst examples.

Don't care about the DVDs, I'm comparing blu-rays against blu-rays.
I'm very easy to please, really. I just want a modern 4k film scan without filtering that destroys the analog quality of the image, preferably from the camera negative if it's usable, color grading that's accurate to the theatrical colors or to the filmmaker's wishes, and good compression. It's not rocket science. These people are apparently professionals and I'm not going to praise them for doing the bare minimum their job requires.

[Mr. Cinema]

Better than DVD isn't good enough. I thought BD was supposed to represent the theatrical presentation as closely as possible. The original Gladiator BD was better than the DVD and yet we still got a new transfer less than a year after the original debuted. Didn't the flaws of that transfer originate from AVS? I guess they got 1 right.

Does this pic below look smeared to anyone else?

[Show spoiler]

Are we going to give Universal of all studios, the benefit of the doubt? The studio who gave us the original transfer of Gladiator, Spartacus, Out of Africa?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Actually to be fair, Oink chimed in and gave THE THIN RED LINE big praise over there. It seems there's one guy in particular who's been going on and on and on about the Blu-ray because he's deemed its ABR to be too low, but most folks in that thread have not been agreeing with him.

Vincent

Vincent,

Oink chimed in long after there were all sorts of different confirmations coming in from all sorts of different places that the presentation was indeed solid. When eric.exe speculated that there were encoding errors of some sort his reply was That is really bizarre - which is what I am trying to point out: get the disc, watch it, and judge the quality; don't go around creating buzz without having seen the actual disc, because things can't really be that bizarre when you have not seen the transfer.

It is a very simple concept

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Are we going to give Universal of all studios, the benefit of the doubt? The studio who gave us the original transfer of Gladiator, Spartacus, Out of Africa?

No. But I sure am not going to give a few people who have not seen the BD the benefit of the doubt either.

Pro-B

[Jeff Kleist]

I've talked quite a bit about how RedBox is unsustainable at $1 a night

Here's the first chink in that armor

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...k-rentals.html

New releases $3 at the Blockbuster kiosks. If people don't run away from it, fully expect Redbox to be running right after them, whether they like it or not when their current deals expire.

There's other possible variations being bandied about. A "Netflix Plus" which would give immediate access to new releases in Watch Instantly (but where a large percentage of the premium would be kicked back to the studios). I don't think these 28 day windows are going to last, they'll just be replaced by premium services