Gladiator (2000)

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Monkey

+1000 Only 1 out of 200 blu-ray's is worthy of a purchase by their "standards"...

AVSer #1- "eh that looks great to me"
AVSer #2 "you need to zoom in 500% to see the DNR and Halos"
AVSer #1 "oh crap you are right, start the petitions.. Boycott this.. lets send X studio a message that we will not tolerate these garbage transfers".
AVSer#2 "yup, stick to the DVD"

LOL at the likelyhood of the accuracy of that scenario.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

LOL at the likelyhood of the accuracy of that scenario.

If that's all they ever say, why don't they just do that? Stop whining about blu-ray, get off the AVS forums, sell all their blu-rays and go get DVD movies? Sounds like a giant waste of time to me...

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I'll only be watching the extended cuts when I fire these puppies up anyway so I doubt these transfers will bother me at all. Thank you for sharing your opinion with us, it's much appreciated.

I believe that seemless branching is used and all the scenes common to both theatrical and extended versions will likely have the inferior version. Only the newer scenes in the extended cut will have the better PQ.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

LOL at the likelyhood of the accuracy of that scenario.

I agree that this happens waaaay too regularly over there - Baraka anyone? - but in my opinion this is not such a case. The problems with Gladiator are far more obvious. It took me one look at the DVD Beaver shots to see that something was wrong.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

LOL at the likelyhood of the accuracy of that scenario.

You missed out on the Transformers thread back in the day 100% accurate..Transformers the DNR mess on blu Then their was the Baraka shredding as well as many many other blu-ray titles..

I haven't watched it yet. Just based off history though I'm sure it isn't a perfect transfer. I just doubt it is "garbage" only as good as "DVD upconvert", etc comments that are typical remarks for a movie that isn't perfect.

My guess is isn't perfect but also isn't garbage and definitely better than DVD upconverted... That's all I can really say until I see for myself. (Half the people on those threads judge based off screen caps, which isn't accurate way to judge to begin with)..

A broken clock is correct twice a day.. problem is the rest of the time (comments from avs)

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

Interesting to see the reaction now that it's known they were posted on the AVS forum. Does this fact alone suddenly make them less valid?Just to make one thing clear, I'm absolutely not into the extremism that is often showcased there, but in the case of Gladiator I could do nothing but agree with it.

If its true, no. But the credibility coming through the door has gone down by....a smidge. A large smidge.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

If its true, no. But the credibility coming through the door has gone down by....a smidge. A large smidge.

Sorry, but even taking into account the stuff that sometimes goes on there that remark just reaks of sheer prejudice. Screenshots are screenshots and the mention of the source doesn't magically alter them.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Monkey

You missed out on the Transformers thread back in the day 100% accurate..Transformers the DNR mess on blu Then their was the Baraka shredding as well as many many other blu-ray titles..

I haven't watched it yet. Just based off history though I'm sure it isn't a perfect transfer. I just doubt it is "garbage" only as good as "DVD upconvert", etc comments that are typical remarks for a movie that isn't perfect.

My guess is isn't perfect but also isn't garbage and definitely better than DVD upconverted... That's all.

NO WAY MAN. I just mailed letters to Paramount and to the director. When I dont buy it, they will sit up and take notice and restore it.

Eager to see what the staff here says. I am safe either way, since I am holdng off a bit for the price to drop.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

Sorry, but even taking into account the stuff that sometimes goes on there that remark just reaks of sheer prejudice. Screenshots are screenshots and the mention of the source doesn't magically alter them.

You are damn straight I am prejudice about AVS screenshots.



This could be a bad transfer. I'll know when I see it in motion.

AVS? Zero respect.

[Monkey]

haha, I checked out that thread.. Sure enough

"Wow, Now I see it, clear as day. Before this (referrering to the super zoomed in picture) I couldn't see it on my 32" Dell PC monitor. Big difference. Thanks for taking the time to do this."

32" Dell PC monitor is pretty freaking big to not see it before doing a zoom in of the horrible problem.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

Screenshots are screenshots and the mention of the source doesn't magically alter them.

Correct. Screenshots are screenshots, and I'd rather watch the movie in motion than scrutinize still frames. I don't believe it's an accurate way to judge picture quality at all.

The folks at AVS are ridiculous most of the times.

I'll wait to watch the movie before I make any judgement calls on the quality, thank you very much. Just my two cents.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You are damn straight I am prejudice about AVS screenshots.

This could be a bad transfer. I'll know when I see it in motion.

AVS? Zero respect.

I wonder if there's a way you guys could get the better members away from that horrible place and over here? I'd try myself but I've never been there and I doubt they'd listen to me. That said, I'm prepared to fall in love with Braveheart all over again and be slightly disappointed with Gladiator.

[Godbluffer]

Indeed it's not the GARBAGE that it's said to be. Just personally I would rate the PQ of the extended scenes a full 5 stars, it's simply reference quality. The theatrical shots score no higher than 3,5 when I look at those, so no garbage, but really disappointing for a long awaited high profile title such as this one. It should get the royal treatment, especially as it's there for all to see how great the whole thing could have looked.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

Sorry, but even taking into account the stuff that sometimes goes on there that remark just reaks of sheer prejudice. Screenshots are screenshots and the mention of the source doesn't magically alter them.

Sure it does. AVSForum is a forum, I am much more inclined to trust the screenshots directly associated with a website that has a history of quality images accompanying their reviews.

Now, if Ralph Potts included screenshots with his reviews, I would weight those differently than your average post member with whom I have no past interaction to compare their comments against.

I'm not saying that posters here would have greater integrity in terms of the screenshots they post, but I would at least be familiar with who they were and the accuracy of their prior screenshots. I'm sure AVSForum members treat the screenshots provided by members here with the same respect we do of theirs.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by benricci

Correct. Screenshots are screenshots, and I'd rather watch the movie in motion than scrutinize still frames. I don't believe it's an accurate way to judge picture quality at all.

The folks at AVS are ridiculous most of the times.

Just my two cents.

+1. I can have 24 consecutive frames and advance frame by frame on my blu-ray player and they will certainly not all be of the same quality in regards to clarity, sharpness, grain patterns, motion blurr, etc. That's the beauty of it, one can choose the best looking, worst, or somewhere in between and present what they want the audience to see.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Godbluffer

I would rate the PQ of the extended scenes a full 5 stars, it's simply reference quality. The theatrical shots score no higher than 3,5

I don't think you're in a position to give out ratings, since you mentioned a few posts back that you've never even seen this disc.

[MCT]

So Paramount gave the extended sequences more attention, and left the remainder of the theatrical version to dry (so to speak)? I just skimmed the last few pages, so forgive me if I'm missing something.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I'm sure AVSForum members treat the screenshots provided by members here with the same respect we do of theirs.

... and so far not a single AVS member has doubted the screenshots. Does this mean that they're simply triggerhappy and like to complain at every turn? I have to admit that scenarion is quite likely there , but I tend to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Other multi-posters would have surely called the original poster on it if they had any reason to do doubt the accuracy of the pics shown.

[Xorp]

Sorry but a premium line with premium prices that advertises "The BEST picture for the best pictures" should look perfect in screenshots, as Braveheart does. Every single screenshot of Braveheart looks flawless: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=380

[Jimbo976]

That stuff is pure marketing BS of course.