Gladiator (2000)

[DrrnHarr]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

A few 100 peolpe here, at Amazon.com and in other forums, may be livid about the transfer of Gladiator being waxy and plasticy. But I'm sure Johnny Beer Belly (I don't know Joe Six Pack) strolling by a TV in Sears would be in awe over Gladiator on a 52" Sony Bravia.

Then why does the BRAVEHEART Blu-ray have such a great picture?

[I-Candy]

Originally Posted by DrrnHarr

Then why does the BRAVEHEART Blu-ray have such a great picture?

Because it is a different movie...

and every movie has a negative and a transfer that is specific onto itself and different from every other. Braveheart is an apple, and Gladiator is an orange. Some people may disagree with you on Braveheart. The same as some people may not like apples.

I guess, maybe Braveheart's transfer didn't offend the grain loving forum posters here. That is why the complaints aren't rolling in. Also, I don't think as many people have Braveheart as their number 1 or even in their top 10 as they do with Gladiator. So fewer people to offend, therefore fewer people to throw tantrums. The small mob, that doesn't like the grainy Scotland skies, has a voice that isn't loud enough to be heard.

Has anyone claimed Braveheart is reference quality? Haven't heard. Too much noise on how Paramount F---uped, and how Saphire is amarketing scam.

[usps03]

I'll wait to see the emporor's new clothes...I mean gladiator on blu-ray until it comes out on blu-ray. Many people have clearly made such an emotional commitment to this release that they have been blinded by its suckieness. I can forgive those early adapters out there who caved in and bought it due to curiosity or gladiator blu-ray detachment syndrome, but for those of you who think this release is less than top notch quality and are willing to promote it anyway, I have this to say to you: There was a format war and Blu-ray won, HD-DVD lost...scoreboard baby. When will you finally admit defeat and support the superior product? and one more thing, do any of you think ridley scott would actually say "no" to making money by signing onto this piece of crap? Stop building up the false morality of film makers. You all have much more if it than they do.

[I-Candy]

Why do studios use DNR and EE?

Please don't answer... because they are morons, or they have their heads up their backsides, etc.

Seriously, when restoring, remastering, or butchering a film, why do they use it. They must have a reason. Right or wrong, isn't the debate, why do they do it?

How many peolpe would go nuts if they heard that Ridley and the boys that did Blade Runner all signed off on Gladiator as being exactly what they wanted. No one has said where Ridley stands. If that was the case, the thread would be as bad as the Lucas hate threads.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

Many people buy Blu-ray for the promise that it offers crystal clear images and uncompressed HD sound. I don't recall ever seeing any Blu-ray commercial that promises a film-like experience. If anyone has a youtube clip of such a commercial please post it.

Top right hand side

[BStecke]

Reviews for Braveheart are all glowing. Sorry, but I can't take a post seriously from someone who hasn't even seen what they're talking about, especially when it refers to this mess as "eye candy."

Fact: The Extended Edition scenes haven't seen the same processing that the theatrical version has and look much better. So, the whole film is very capable of looking great, yet it doesn't. So, your apples and oranges comparo is useless.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Top right hand side

[I-Candy]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Top right hand side

Can't see the start, because of a sticker, but I think the first line refers to sound quality. "PURE SURROUND SOUND QUALITY - TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MASTER."

HIGH DEFINITION PICTURE doesn't necessarily mean film.

[mdm1699]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Top right hand side

amen

[42041]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

How many peolpe would go nuts if they heard that Ridley and the boys that did Blade Runner all signed off on Gladiator as being exactly what they wanted. No one has said where Ridley stands. If that was the case, the thread would be as bad as the Lucas hate threads.

If so, they didn't view it very closely, or simply don't care very much (i like to read the online articles from the ASC magazine that are on their website, and many of these directors and DPs seem entirely concerned with the theatrical release rather than any subsequent one). I suspect that if you sit Ridley in a high end HT and A/B the blu-rays of Body of Lies and Gladiator, he wouldn't take very long to pick out which one of his movies looks better on home video. Whether he goes into a rage and demands it be reworked or says "oh ok" and goes back to work on whatever he's doing now, now that's a different question.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

Why do studios use DNR and EE?

Please don't answer... because they are morons, or they have their heads up their backsides, etc.

Seriously, when restoring, remastering, or butchering a film, why do they use it. They must have a reason. Right or wrong, isn't the debate, why do they do it?

All movies use DNR to a point, as film does not look like video, so it must be cleaned up a bit. It was more useful in the laserdisc or even DVD days, as the technicians were tweaking the master with the idea in mind that it would be compressed and viewed at 480p. EE, for example, makes edges look sharper in low resolutions. This was very useful for laserdisc, but when you increased the resolution for DVD but used a laserdisc tweaked master with lots of EE, the haloing effects stood out.

We are having the same issue with the DVD to BD transition. If you watch a movie on DVD, you'll rarely notice any visible grain because it doesn't compress very well. You can remove it on DVD because the resolution is so low, but if you use DVD standards on BD, it looks awful. The same goes with EE. Now for the most part, the BD can just be the direct copy of the 2k DI (digital intermediate) that is used for the final print of the movie for film or digital distribution to theaters, so the transfer doesn't have to be tweaked at all for BD.

So, it's partially because technicians are still using levels of DNR and EE that were appropriate for DVD but not BD. It's also because many of these technicians are trying to get a DVD-like look on BD (no grain) but are either unaware or do not care that they are literally blurring the image, removing fine detail and visible grain that was there when the images were captured on film in the first place. I've also heard from Bill Hunt and others that many technicians or directors who supervise the transfers of their films often times view the movie on smaller screens, i.e. 40" or so. You don't notice DNR/EE as much on a smaller screen as you do on larger ones.

Over the lifespan of BD, I've seen fewer and fewer DNR'd titles, which is a good thing. New releases overwhelmingly look like they do in the theater. However, catalog titles seem to be hit or miss. For every good title (Blade Runner, Glory) you get bad ones (Patton, Gladiator). Sony seems to be the only consistent studio in terms of catalog titles.

[I-Candy]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Reviews for Braveheart are all glowing. Sorry, but I can't take a post seriously from someone who hasn't even seen what they're talking about, especially when it refers to this mess as "eye candy."

How many people on this thread have seen the Gladiator Blu-ray? 4 or 5.

I'll give it a spin and make up my mind, DNR and EE won't keep me away from something that is better than the DVD and will entertain me for a couple hours.

One's person mess can be another's Picasso.

There is no accounting for taste, each to their own, etc. I'm so surprised, after reading threads here for a short time, how emotional people are getting over what comes down to taste; whether it is for or against Gladiator, grain, 1080p, LOTR extended editions and so on.

This wasn't a direct DVD transfer to Blu-ray like some other movies, was it? Surely, the Paramount wasn't out to rip people off and put out some trash and ruin their Saphire name so they have zero creditability just to make a buck. They must have used DNR and EE as an attempt to make the movie look better. So some say they failed miserable and it is an abomination, others say it is fine, some say it is great.

I'm not sure where I stand yet, but when someone starts screaming and yelling and thowing a fit over a movie, as some here have basically done, it is hard to take them serious. I'll listen to the calmer voices, which are saying watch it; it's worth the 22 bucks. There is a time to go nuts and rally the people together over injustice, I feel an edition of any movie isn't quite it.

[I-Candy]

Originally Posted by singhcr

All movies use DNR to a point, as film does not look like video, so it must be cleaned up a bit. It was more useful in the laserdisc or even DVD days, as the technicians were tweaking the master with the idea in mind that it would be compressed and viewed at 480p. EE, for example, makes edges look sharper in low resolutions. This was very useful for laserdisc, but when you increased the resolution for DVD but used a laserdisc tweaked master with lots of EE, the haloing effects stood out.

We are having the same issue with the DVD to BD transition. If you watch a movie on DVD, you'll rarely notice any visible grain because it doesn't compress very well. You can remove it on DVD because the resolution is so low, but if you use DVD standards on BD, it looks awful. The same goes with EE. Now for the most part, the BD can just be the direct copy of the 2k DI (digital intermediate) that is used for the final print of the movie for film or digital distribution to theaters, so the transfer doesn't have to be tweaked at all for BD.

So, it's partially because technicians are still using levels of DNR and EE that were appropriate for DVD but not BD. It's also because many of these technicians are trying to get a DVD-like look on BD (no grain) but are either unaware or do not care that they are literally blurring the image, removing fine detail and visible grain that was there when the images were captured on film in the first place. I've also heard from Bill Hunt and others that many technicians or directors who supervise the transfers of their films often times view the movie on smaller screens, i.e. 40" or so. You don't notice DNR/EE as much on a smaller screen as you do on larger ones.

Over the lifespan of BD, I've seen fewer and fewer DNR'd titles, which is a good thing. New releases overwhelmingly look like they do in the theater. However, catalog titles seem to be hit or miss. For every good title (Blade Runner, Glory) you get bad ones (Patton, Gladiator). Sony seems to be the only consistent studio in terms of catalog titles.

A good read, thanks.

[Blu Nick]

Using Black Hawk Down as an example is an interesting one as it happens to be a Ridley Scott film.It too has scenes that are intentionally 'grainy' yet SONY decided not to DNR it to death like Universal did with Scott's Gladitator.

Interesting ...

[rpatt]

I guess I'm more an audio guy than video. I thoroughly enjoyed Gladiator and didn't see a problem with the PQ.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

How many people on this thread have seen the Gladiator Blu-ray? 4 or 5.

I'll give it a spin and make up my mind, DNR and EE won't keep me away from something that is better than the DVD and will entertain me for a couple hours.

One's person mess can be another's Picasso.

There is no accounting for taste, each to their own, etc. I'm so surprised, after reading threads here for a short time, how emotional people are getting over what comes down to taste; whether it is for or against Gladiator, grain, 1080p, LOTR extended editions and so on.

This wasn't a direct DVD transfer to Blu-ray like some other movies, was it? Surely, the Paramount wasn't out to rip people off and put out some trash and ruin their Saphire name so they have zero creditability just to make a buck. They must have used DNR and EE as an attempt to make the movie look better. So some say they failed miserable and it is an abomination, others say it is fine, some say it is great.

I'm not sure where I stand yet, but when someone starts screaming and yelling and thowing a fit over a movie, as some here have basically done, it is hard to take them serious. I'll listen to the calmer voices, which are saying watch it; it's worth the 22 bucks. There is a time to go nuts and rally the people together over injustice, I feel an edition of any movie isn't quite it.

Considering the Blu-ray exhibits the same issues that are present in the DVD I have from NINE YEARS AGO, I think it's safe to say that it isn't much of a stretch from being exactly that. There was undoubtably SOME tweaking done for the Blu-ray, but after comparing both, the Blu-ray appears to be little more than a 1080p version of the same master used for the DVD which, by today's standards, ain't that great. As I've said before, is it watchable? Definitely? Is it an improvement over DVD? Yes. Is it great in comparison to other catalog titles on Blu-ray? Definitely not.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

How many people on this thread have seen the Gladiator Blu-ray? 4 or 5.

I'll give it a spin and make up my mind, DNR and EE won't keep me away from something that is better than the DVD and will entertain me for a couple hours.

One's person mess can be another's Picasso.

There is no accounting for taste, each to their own, etc. I'm so surprised, after reading threads here for a short time, how emotional people are getting over what comes down to taste; whether it is for or against Gladiator, grain, 1080p, LOTR extended editions and so on.

This wasn't a direct DVD transfer to Blu-ray like some other movies, was it? Surely, the Paramount wasn't out to rip people off and put out some trash and ruin their Saphire name so they have zero creditability just to make a buck. They must have used DNR and EE as an attempt to make the movie look better. So some say they failed miserable and it is an abomination, others say it is fine, some say it is great.

I'm not sure where I stand yet, but when someone starts screaming and yelling and thowing a fit over a movie, as some here have basically done, it is hard to take them serious. I'll listen to the calmer voices, which are saying watch it; it's worth the 22 bucks. There is a time to go nuts and rally the people together over injustice, I feel an edition of any movie isn't quite it.

Yes. And that is part of the problem. Read Bill Hunts comments about which master was used.

[Blu Nick]

Originally Posted by I-Candy

How many people on this thread have seen the Gladiator Blu-ray? 4 or 5.

I'll give it a spin and make up my mind, DNR and EE won't keep me away from something that is better than the DVD and will entertain me for a couple hours.

One's person mess can be another's Picasso.

There is no accounting for taste, each to their own, etc. I'm so surprised, after reading threads here for a short time, how emotional people are getting over what comes down to taste; whether it is for or against Gladiator, grain, 1080p, LOTR extended editions and so on.

This wasn't a direct DVD transfer to Blu-ray like some other movies, was it? Surely, the Paramount wasn't out to rip people off and put out some trash and ruin their Saphire name so they have zero creditability just to make a buck. They must have used DNR and EE as an attempt to make the movie look better. So some say they failed miserable and it is an abomination, others say it is fine, some say it is great.

I'm not sure where I stand yet, but when someone starts screaming and yelling and thowing a fit over a movie, as some here have basically done, it is hard to take them serious. I'll listen to the calmer voices, which are saying watch it; it's worth the 22 bucks. There is a time to go nuts and rally the people together over injustice, I feel an edition of any movie isn't quite it.

If you insist on seeing it then i suggest you rent it as the PQ - especially compared to other Blu Rays (new or catalogue) - is poor and marginally better than dvd.

It does depend on screen size and appropriate viewing distance but it looked poor on my 60" Kuro from 9ft and nowhere near as good as what i 'm used to or expect from a Blu Ray.

When viewing it seemed like i was watching a dvd - very flat,2 dimensional,soft - like a dvd !.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Considering the Blu-ray exhibits the same issues that are present in the DVD I have from NINE YEARS AGO, I think it's safe to say that it isn't much of a stretch from being exactly that. There was undoubtably SOME tweaking done for the Blu-ray, but after comparing both, the Blu-ray appears to be little more than a 1080p version of the same master used for the DVD which, by today's standards, ain't that great. As I've said before, is it watchable? Definitely? Is it an improvement over DVD? Yes. Is it great in comparison to other catalog titles on Blu-ray? Definitely not.

Something to back your post up.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2524/gladiator.html
"Perhaps the biggest problem with the 'Gladiator' transfer is that it's not a consistent effort. Rumor has it the bulk of the film was struck from a 2000 HD master (approved by Scott) in which digital enhancements were made, while the extended scenes are taken from a 2005 HD master that reflects today's more natural transfer standards."

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Top right hand side

I cant take my eyes away from that pricetag.......good lawd thats a lot of money!