Gladiator (2000)

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Ah I changed "everything" to "anything" after you said that because reading it did sound a little weird

Did you end up watching the entire movie Sussudio? My PS3 is updating to 3.0

zzzzzzzz

[HAVOKK]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

It sounds like the transfer is an old one and was made with the intention of making a DVD out of it (since there was very little HD back then). The resolution of a DVD frame is 720x480. I don`t think anyone was planning for a future release which has frame sizes of 1920x1080. The transfer was likely good enough for DVD but just doesn`t cut it for today`s standards.

Thats my point.. Did they, with good intentions, screw it up thinking that DVD was the top of the line?

Batfan, i hope your right about the original hangin around somewhere.. Id pay a good price for a fresh copy on BD.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Anyone can take the numbers and average them....we don't need an extra category just for that...the point of the final rating is for the reviewer to assess the overall value of the entire disc, which may be a lot less OR greater than the average. For instance, a movie that critically is amazing and has a great transfer might deserve an extremely high recommendation just for that....but if averaged may come out to a lot less and send out the wrong message

No, you misunderstand. When I write reviews for a magazine, I have an idea what the average PQ of Blu-ray is as a format, based on all the Blu-rays I've watched. It's that average I use when grading the PQ of a release. I see Gladiator's PQ as below that average.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Deads3t

Did you end up watching the entire movie Sussudio? My PS3 is updating to 3.0

zzzzzzzz

Not yet...I was hoping to watch the Extended Cut last night but didn't get around to it. Then my shipment from WBShop came in so I have even more blus to watch now I did watch some of the theatrical cut though, and while disappointed, I didn't think it was "atrocious" or anything like that. I'm also a big fan of special features, so to see all of those loaded on to the disc(s) along with the additional cut of the movie made me fairly satisfied. Do I want the movie to look the best it can/would I like to see a replacement? Of course, but I won't get my panties in a twist if nothing ends up happening

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK

Thats my point.. Did they, with good intentions, screw it up thinking that DVD was the top of the line?

Batfan, i hope your right about the original hangin around somewhere.. Id pay a good price for a fresh copy on BD.

I would be shocked if they don't have a legit version in the vault somewhere. It's expensive as hell to do a new scan though. Remember that the film was co-produced by Dreamworks and Universal. Paramount at the time had zero interest in the film and saw none of the benefits from it until they acquired Paramount sometime around 2006. Basically they're just doing what any of the studios would probably do. Acquire a property and milk it for all its worth instead of going to the trouble to do a new scan and transfer.

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK

Thats my point.. Did they, with good intentions, screw it up thinking that DVD was the top of the line?

Batfan, i hope your right about the original hangin around somewhere.. Id pay a good price for a fresh copy on BD.

From what i`ve read it seems that only in the last couple of years is the standard on transfers from most studios (if not all) of good enough quality to take full advantage of what Blu-ray can offer. So some transfers done even 3 years ago are not good enough to make full use of Blu-ray. Going forward all newly done transfers should be great but until all movies get new 2k or better transfers we`re going to see a lot of subpar releases on Blu-ray.

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Not yet...I was hoping to watch the Extended Cut last night but didn't get around to it. Then my shipment from WBShop came in so I have even more blus to watch now I did watch some of the theatrical cut though, and while disappointed, I didn't think it was "atrocious" or anything like that. I'm also a big fan of special features, so to see all of those loaded on to the disc(s) along with the additional cut of the movie made me fairly satisfied. Do I want the movie to look the best it can/would I like to see a replacement? Of course, but I won't get my panties in a twist if nothing ends up happening

got it working........watching extended cut

[HAVOKK]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I would be shocked if they don't have a legit version in the vault somewhere. It's expensive as hell to do a new scan though. Remember that the film was co-produced by Dreamworks and Universal. Paramount at the time had zero interest in the film and saw none of the benefits from it until they acquired Paramount sometime around 2006. Basically they're just doing what any of the studios would probably do. Acquire a property and milk it for all its worth instead of going to the trouble to do a new scan and transfer.

in other words.. Gladiator on BD is the result of laziness.. sad

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK

in other words.. Gladiator on BD is the result of laziness.. sad

Yes.

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I would be shocked if they don't have a legit version in the vault somewhere. It's expensive as hell to do a new scan though. Remember that the film was co-produced by Dreamworks and Universal. Paramount at the time had zero interest in the film and saw none of the benefits from it until they acquired Paramount sometime around 2006. Basically they're just doing what any of the studios would probably do. Acquire a property and milk it for all its worth instead of going to the trouble to do a new scan and transfer.

On another forum someone stated that they heard the cost of a transfer on a catalog title is in the range of $250,000 US to $500,000 US and even more if the film elements need a lot of cleaning or other things. That`s a lot of moulah to make up trying to sell Blu-ray catalog titles these days.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

No, you misunderstand. When I write reviews for a magazine, I have an idea what the average PQ of Blu-ray is as a format, based on all the Blu-rays I've watched. It's that average I use when grading the PQ of a release. I see Gladiator's PQ as below that average.

Well, I understand your point but Bluray.com isn't your magazine

IMO, you simply can't take a blu-ray like...for instance...Ghostbusters and rate it according to the best of the format, because Ghostbusters was not shot the same way as the "best" of the format...different cameras, film stock, lighting conditions, etc....I always believed the proper way to rate a blu-ray was by how accurately it mirrored its theatrical presentation, not necessarily how it stacks up to other discs. Just me

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK

in other words.. Gladiator on BD is the result of laziness.. sad

Well laziness yes but likely also economics.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

On another forum someone stated that they heard the cost of a transfer on a catalog title is in the range of $250,000 US to $500,000 US and even more if the film elements need a lot of cleaning or other things. That`s a lot of moulah to make up trying to sell Blu-ray catalog titles these days.

Exactly. Like I said before, Paramount was not in on any of the smashing success of this film either at the box office or its initial run on DVD. At this point any money it can make on home video is peanuts compared to what it made at the box office and on DVD for the first 2-3 years.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

From what i`ve read it seems that only in the last couple of years is the standard on transfers from most studios (if not all) of good enough quality to take full advantage of what Blu-ray can offer. So some transfers done even 3 years ago are not good enough to make full use of Blu-ray. Going forward all newly done transfers should be great but until all movies get new 2k or better transfers we`re going to see a lot of subpar releases on Blu-ray.

Actually, studios have been doing 2K transfers for quite a long time. Where do you think all the HD masters used for HDTV channel broadcasts came from? In fact, New Line Studio started doing 4K (or maybe even 8K) archival transfers of all their new movies way back in the 90's. I think the first one to get that treatment was Se7en, but my memory is a bit hazy on that.

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

Actually, studios have been doing 2K transfers for quite a long time. Where do you think all the HD masters used for HDTV channel broadcasts came from? In fact, New Line Studio started doing 4K (or maybe even 8K) archival transfers of all their new movies way back in the 90's. I think the first one to get that treatment was Se7en, but my memory is a bit hazy. Dang it, it's past 4am, way past my bedtime. Nighty night, folks.

Sure some studios have been ahead of the game but not all have been using this standard for all their releases from my understanding until more recently.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Deads3t

got it working........watching extended cut

Lemme know what you think!

[bfellow]

I agree new scan. Less or no edge enhancement. Turn the brightness back to normal. Keep the DNR at a minimum so we can have more detail. No more time-shifting fireball and arrows!

There Paramount should get that in its head.

[HAVOKK]

Well, maybe if they made enough off this release they would throw down the dough to do it again right? Raise the prices a little for the improved BD and please all the fans.. I for one would buy it again..

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by bfellow

I agree new scan. Less or no edge enhancement. Turn the brightness back to normal. Keep the DNR at a minimum so we can have more detail. No more time-shifting fireball and arrows!

There Paramount should get that in its head.

And turn off the f**king color processing! I don't know what the hell they did but the colors were overdone. Good thing about my HDTV is that it has a nice color range so I can at least make this disc look a lot better than it naturally does.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Well, I understand your point but Bluray.com isn't your magazine

Wasn't saying it was, just giving an example to explain the reasoning behind my score.

IMO, you simply can't use a blu-ray like...for instance...Ghostbusters and rate it according to the best of the format, because Ghostbusters was not shot the same way as the "best" of the format...different cameras, film stock, lighting conditions, etc....I always believed the proper way to rate a blu-ray was by how accurately it mirrored its theatrical presentation, not necessarily how it stacks up to other discs. Just me

That is most certainly a good point. But what it you haven't seen the theatrical presentation? What if the theatre you saw it in was running a print way past its prime, had a dim lamp in the projector and the projectionist was drunk off his mind with cheap Mexican rum? Are reviewers supposed to have all movies in their home as pristine 35mm prints? I'm joking, of course, but surely you see my point about comparing to theatrical presentation. It's an admirable goal, for certain, and I went for it back in the day. But it's not a realistic goal.