Gladiator (2000)

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by space-monkey

I think it's more that he is supposed to look like an ancient stage performer, but yeah, it looks more like makeup than DNR. The shots of Richard Harris, for instance, are loaded with fine detail

shhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anyone over at AVS that. They might crucify you

[Mike2060]

I think you can spot the DNR in that pic from the lack of grain in the background.

[robertc88]

If one is comcerned about Gladiator, just rent it. That would be the safest way to go and you can probably pick it up cheaper shortly down the road.

I don't really judge by screen caps but what I'm seeing isn't looking too good. I've been more fussy with catalog titles lately, I do own my share but I'm going to hold off till I can judge for myself.

And there is word of a new encode coming which hopefully is region free so one can import that if it indeed pans out.

[RiseDarthVader]

I wonder if Universal is doing their own encode for Gladiator without the EE issues.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

I think you can spot the DNR in that pic from the lack of grain in the background.

I think you can spot it even better here...

Blu-ray Theatrical or 'wax puppet' version:


Extended version same scene on same Blu-ray looking razor-sharp with every single pore visible:


Try arguing away THAT.

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

I think you can spot it even better here...


Try arguing away THAT.

Wow your second post! I wonder what the 1st one was about?

[eChopper]

thought Godbluffer has a valid point

[Jimbo976]

I'll wait to see mine in person.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

Wow your second post! I wonder what the 1st one was about?

Just click on my name on the left.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

Try arguing away THAT.

In these pics, the extended version is clearly better looking. No arguing that.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

In these pics, the extended version is clearly better looking. No arguing that.

It's weird as they usually look exactly the same on releases, but I can't argue it either. If that is indeed the case though, I don't really care because I'd be watching the extended version anyways.

[Chrysagon]

Originally Posted by killowertz

It's weird as they usually look exactly the same on releases, but I can't argue it either. If that is indeed the case though, I don't really care because I'd be watching the extended version anyways.

I thought the extended version was "seemlessly branched" with the theatrical version. Doesn't that mean that they should be using the same frames if common to both versions, and therefore they should look the same?

[blu2]

Originally Posted by killowertz

It's weird as they usually look exactly the same on releases, but I can't argue it either. If that is indeed the case though, I don't really care because I'd be watching the extended version anyways.

But are they using seemless branching for the extended version?

In which case, only the extended portions/scences are pristine?

Bizarre if true.

[degas]

I'm sad to say I will pass on Gladiator.
Too bad, since I really looked forward to it. But there's no way I'm buying that "DNR-then-sharpened-again"-mess.

[Chrysagon]

Originally Posted by blu2

But are they using seemless branching for the extended version?

In which case, only the extended portions/scences are pristine?

Bizarre if true.

According to DVDBeaver they are seamlessly branched. So those frames in common to both should look the same (?). So the scenes in the above post should look the same (?).

[Batman1980]

As for that show of the Roman where people say it's DNRed, I think it's too hard to tell. Sure it's blurred behind him but there could be any number of reasons for that.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

As for that show of the Roman where people say it's DNRed, I think it's too hard to tell. Sure it's blurred behind him but there could be any number of reasons for that.

I'm still pretty confused, but it's not going to keep me from buying the movie.

[steve_dave]

It could be because of both the rack focus and fast cinematography used in Gladiator that results in the foreground looking off and the background looking blurred. You also to remember that in the scene with the announcer, he is wearing quite a lot of makeup on purpose which results in the waxy look.

But again, a majority of people are doing like AVS and not watching the movie...only basing their opinion on screenshots.

Has it occured to some of you that unlike Braveheart, Gladiator has digitial SFX that were used in place of practical effects?

I'm talking about the Colosseum which was digitally enhanced since only a portion was built. That the audience was Phantom Menace'd: only a small amount of extras were used, the rest digitally copied and pasted into the digital extension. What you perceive as edge enhancement could in fact be the outline of the actors standing out from the digital effects. Something we rarely notice now due to better cinematography, evolved CGI, and less obtrusive matte paintings. When you take a screengrab of a 1900x1280 resolution picture and view it at full resolution, you are going to see what was never meant to be seen.

Of course, I could be wrong and Ridley Scott approved a total crapfest of a Blu-ray Disc that should have never been released until 2015 for the 15th anniversary because by then there would have been other releases with even worse transfers.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

Try arguing away THAT.

Uh, it's not the same frame.

Now capture that exact frame from both versions. An object in motion is going to have varying levels of detail.

[Jonasprivate]

Braveheart it has perfect picture, Gladiator no thanks they destroyed the picture. E-mail Paramount and tell them what you think about Gladiator.
So they can take it back and do a new one.