Gladiator (2000)

[robertc88]

After watching last night and parts again this morning, this ain't no Patton which I did not like at all on BD! The DNR isn't nearly as bad.

The first part of the movie with the battle and what happens in the next few chapters of the movie is the worst part of the PQ. Well so is the SD DVD DTS ES set.

I knew after watching it someone was going to say is there a bad batch because they enjoyed it and are satisfied. This good be better obviously and compared to Braveheart, no we don't have a "great" effort with Gladiator. But how many catalog titles do we? J6P will probably note the difference between the two but I feel they will enjoy watching it which is the most important thing. On my 40" Samsung LCD and the LG390 BD player, no it isn't as bad as it is being made out to be.

You get a good price if you were buying Braveheart anyway and then $10 if you take part in the mail in offer. You get good supplements, excellent AQ and a movie you like ESPECIALLY if you don't have the SD DVD, this is way better than nothing!

Out of curiousity, I really think there should be a poll for how you felt about this BD and if you enjoyed watching it. We already have one if you are buying it or not at this point but now that it is out and folks are viewing it.....

I spoke of inconsistent feedback regarding this BD after viewing. Never have I read more than with this BD. Folks know what awful is and no we don't have overwhelming positives but still!

[Jimbo976]

Thanks for your comments robertc88. I was wondering what you were going to think. I suspect my feelings will be about the same when I see it.

[SBrooks1]

Originally Posted by robertc88

After watching last night and parts again this morning, this ain't no Patton which I did not like at all on BD! The DNR isn't nearly as bad.

Patton, even with the little bit of DNR used on it, looks 10x better than Gladiator. I realize Patton was 70mm but I would use Patton as a demo disc any day over Gladiator.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by SBrooks1

Patton, even with the little bit of DNR used on it, looks 10x better than Gladiator. I realize Patton was 70mm but I would use Patton as a demo disc any day over Gladiator.

I haven't watched Patton. But I do own Terminator 2 Skynet Edition and it is notorious for DNR. It looks better than Gladiator in my opinion. Gladiator has a more processed look due to the EE that has been applied. The processing is rather idiotic if you ask me. Apply DNR to remove grain, then apply EE to apply artificial sharpening?

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by SBrooks1

Patton, even with the little bit of DNR used on it, looks 10x better than Gladiator. I realize Patton was 70mm but I would use Patton as a demo disc any day over Gladiator.

Patton distracts me, this movie though not the greatest PQ obviously didn't nearly as much and I enjoyed watching it much more. May as well had a waxed Patton on the stage in the beginning!

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Blu2U

I have a new theory:

Paramount found out about the PQ issues. Stopped all production of the discs. Did and will not release screeners. Let the masses buy the copies that are made instead of throwing out all of that inventory. Plan on replacing any copies to those who make a stink about it when re-release is done. This way everybody ends up happy with the LEAST amount of financial damage.

Think about it if they pulled the release, the would have lost a boat load.

IMO

your theory is most likely on the money.it doesn't surprize me that paramount has said noting about it.like the startrek 6 movie set all the fuss will die down until they screw up the next major title.paramount is counting on this.

[vega2K]

Maybe this is a stupid question but I am starting to wonder what is the point of DNR and EE all together??? If the movie was fine at the theater, why process it for home viewing? Does the conversion from film to blu introduce enough noise that processing actually helps - in some cases??? Has there ever been an instance where the processing actually made the movie better?? Isn't it the same as Audio, in terms of - it is better left untouched???

Just trying to understand.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by SBrooks1

Patton, even with the little bit of DNR used on it, looks 10x better than Gladiator. I realize Patton was 70mm but I would use Patton as a demo disc any day over Gladiator.

I agree. At first I thought the DNR levels on Gladiator would be similar to Patton and everyone was making a big fuss over nothing, but they are SO much worse.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

Having got home from work and with this debate raging still I decided to check it out on my 73" in the basement, I had watched it upstairs on the 42 earlier. Tonight the room was dark where earlier it was sunny and bright.

Big difference.

Put in Gladiator, watched literally the first 7 or 9 minutes and had to turn it off.

+1

i watched mine last night on a 67" DLP at 9 feet viewing distance in dark room. looked horrid.

obviously, how we each see it does depend on our viewing equipment and lighting conditions, as you demonstrated.

[SBrooks1]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Maybe this is a stupid question but I am starting to wonder what is the point of DNR and EE all together??? If the movie was fine at the theater, why process it for home viewing?

They used DNR and EE here because they used the same 2000 master used on the DVD. They didn't remaster it properly. If they did then the Theatrical Edition would look as good as the Extended Edition scenes seamlessly branched in do.

That's the million dollar question....Does Universal/Paramount have a complete version of Gladiator that matches the Extended Edition scenes' picture quality??

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Maybe this is a stupid question but I am starting to wonder what is the point of DNR and EE all together??? If the movie was fine at the theater, why process it for home viewing? Does the conversion from film to blu introduce enough noise that processing actually helps - in some cases??? Has there ever been an instance where the processing actually made the movie better?? Isn't it the same as Audio, in terms of - it is better left untouched???

Just trying to understand.

The problem is the studios think everyone wants HDTV (aka pretty much no grain) except without all the compression artifacts that occur with broadcasting. Basically they think we want HDTV with a better bitrate and less compression. The problem is that film is an entirely different format from television. When the source is film, there will be grain. The studios need to just leave it alone.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by SBrooks1

They used DNR and EE here because they used the same 2000 master used on the DVD. They didn't remaster it properly. If they did then the Theatrical Edition would look as good as the Extended Edition scenes seamlessly branched in do.

That's the million dollar question....Does Universal/Paramount have a complete version of Gladiator that matches the Extended Edition scenes' picture quality??

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

LOL see I love the movie and while it does look like crap, I just wanted to get it. Worth saying again, I will either sell it when a better transfer comes out or if I'm lucky, trade it in. I would complain like you guys but since I actually bought the movie, I don't think they really care since they already have my $.

i don't follow your logic.you know this movies pq sucks,you know your getting ripped off,you know it could have better,yet you buy it anyways cause you love the movie....ok.

my question is wheres the bda in all of this?how much power do they have?can they put pressure on the studio's for better product?do they even care?

[MattDean]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I haven't watched Patton. But I do own Terminator 2 Skynet Edition and it is notorious for DNR. It looks better than Gladiator in my opinion. Gladiator has a more processed look due to the EE that has been applied. The processing is rather idiotic if you ask me. Apply DNR to remove grain, then apply EE to apply artificial sharpening?

Slightly off, okay totally off topic I know, but if you read what Bill Hunt (Digital Bits) said about T2 Skynet after looking at it in detail, and discussing it with industry experts, it seems the presentation is pretty much spot on. There is a lot of discussion there about what appears to be DNR, etc. I haven't read the article since it first appeared on The Digital Bits, but it's an interesting read. Sorry can't give a link as I've other stuff to sort out but seriously give it a read.

Back to Gladiator...

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by SBrooks1

That's the million dollar question....Does Universal/Paramount have a complete version of Gladiator that matches the Extended Edition scenes' picture quality??

Yep that is the big question. If they do then there really doesn't seem to be any excuse.

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Maybe this is a stupid question but I am starting to wonder what is the point of DNR and EE all together???

As someone who prepares digital still images for commercial sale, I apply small amounts of DNR and sharpening to images I sell. I would prefer not to, but if I don't, they get rejected. If I don't apply DNR, people complain the pictures have noise, and if I don't apply sharpening people complain that they are soft. It's a very fine balance, though, and I have had pictures rejected for being sharpened too much, as well as for being too soft. Basically you need to sharpen as much as you can without being able to see any hint of halos around things. Sometimes I even selectively sharpen isolated parts of an image to avoid introducing halos at high contrast boundaries, but it would be infeasible to apply so much attention to every frame of a movie.

[callas01]

I thought the opening scene did look kinda cruddy, but could that have been intentional? I mean were they going for a rough look? It is a battle scene, and like BoB, there is inherent grain and artifacts in the picture that give you a sense of war. When I jumped to the Gladiator scenes in Rome I felt that while the PQ wasn't that of Braveheart, it was actually much better then my DVD copy. Would I consider this Reference Quality? No, but much better then my DVD and some other Blus I own.

[bandit29]

Originally Posted by callas01

I thought the opening scene did look kinda cruddy, but could that have been intentional? I mean were they going for a rough look? It is a battle scene, and like BoB, there is inherent grain and artifacts in the picture that give you a sense of war. When I jumped to the Gladiator scenes in Rome I felt that while the PQ wasn't that of Braveheart, it was actually much better then my DVD copy. Would I consider this Reference Quality? No, but much better then my DVD and some other Blus I own.

The opening scenes are the worst looking parts of the movie. They look smeared and blurry to me. The movie does look better after that.

[TheHOYT]

Originally Posted by robertc88

You get a good price if you were buying Braveheart anyway and then $10 if you take part in the mail in offer. You get good supplements, excellent AQ and a movie you like ESPECIALLY if you don't have the SD DVD, this is way better than nothing!

I fall into this category. I sold my copy of the SD DVD EE awhile ago, prepping myself for the films release on Blu-ray.

Am I disappointed... yeah, a little. I'm not a PQ expert, but I can tell that this transfer wasn't up to snuff. However, it is not the worst transfer I've ever seen, and it's better than the SD DVDs. I love this movie, and I'm glad I own it again. As I watched it last night, it felt like I was visiting an old high school friend.

If Paramount issues another version with better PQ, and there is the opportunity to trade-in, it's just icing on the cake.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Maybe this is a stupid question but I am starting to wonder what is the point of DNR and EE all together??? If the movie was fine at the theater, why process it for home viewing? Does the conversion from film to blu introduce enough noise that processing actually helps - in some cases??? Has there ever been an instance where the processing actually made the movie better?? Isn't it the same as Audio, in terms of - it is better left untouched???

Just trying to understand.

its not a stupid question. from what i understand dnr and ee are part of the dvd standard and for some reason they think it needs to be applyed to blu-ray.that one school of thought.the other is a lot of people hate grain,i don't but a lot of people do.they want that video game look.what they do is dnr it to death until they lose detail.

what happen to gladitor shouldn't happen,not a major title like this.this may a case of people not doing there jobs.as we know univeral did the transfer and shipped it to paramount.someone at paramount should have looked at it.or maybe they did and signed off anyways.who knows.the bad part is so far paramount hasn't said anything about it and i think they owe us to say something.

what i don't get is people will buy this title anyways because they have to have it.that does 2 things.1 it allows the studios to keep putting out this crap.
2it hurts the format.to me thats the big picture and you keep hearing from joe 6 pack''i can't see a difference''.

joe 6 pack isn't as stupid as people make them out to be.i know at least 10 people that have zero interest in hi-def and can see a difference.off topic,sorry.