|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $29.96 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $49.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $86.13 11 hrs ago
| ![]() $29.96 10 hrs ago
| ![]() $34.96 1 day ago
| ![]() $31.99 | ![]() $36.69 1 day ago
| ![]() $19.99 1 hr ago
| ![]() $14.44 13 hrs ago
| ![]() $122.99 7 hrs ago
| ![]() $37.99 | ![]() $80.68 |
![]() |
#9741 | |
Special Member
![]() Feb 2008
Region B
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#9742 | ||
Banned
|
![]() Quote:
TrueHD can do 6.1 just as easily. And is it really 6.1 discrete anyway? WB and others have a habit of labeling 5.1-ES as 6.1, like the Harry Potter Ultimate Editions. |
||
![]() |
#9743 |
Blu-ray Archduke
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9745 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
Should video quality be graded on how its intended to look or how the average reviewer will think its looks regardless of being true to the directors intent or not? Case in point: The Godfather on bluray. To the average person who buys a bluray expecting to be blown away by the picture and expects a crystal clear picture is going to be disappointed eventhough, the Godfather looks the best its ever going to look AND that it perfectly conveys the look Coppola was intending, which was to look like a moving photograph. |
|
![]() |
#9746 |
Banned
|
![]()
IN that case Warner has a few titles that are Dolby TrueHD 5.1 EX, such as the Clone Wars movie, the last 2 Austin Powers, and The Perfect Storm.
Warner switched codecs/authoring houses so it really isn't a different mix. |
![]() |
#9747 | |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]() Quote:
And I love the look of the Godfather movies, not just because it's the 'best it's going to look', but because the BDs show off Gordon Willis' cinematography amazingly. |
|
![]() |
#9748 | |
Special Member
![]() Feb 2008
Region B
|
![]() Quote:
What if the video quality looks really rubbish because it was shot on an SD video camera? What if the director purposely wanted the video to look rubbish, and the Blu-ray's video quality matches it exactly (ie. the video quality of the Blu-ray is also rubbish) - should it really get a top score because it looks rubbish - just like the original telecine or SD video footage it was made from? What if the whole thing is up-converted from SD video or is so filtered that it's resolution is less or equal to SD video or what if the video quality actually looks worse than the best up-scaled DVD? If the extra features had scores for PQ too, what if they were PAL resolution on the PAL DVD but only NTSC resolution on the Blu-ray - and they were originally shot with a PAL camera? The digitalbits site doesn't say that it's "how close it is to the source" it just says "picture quality" so surely that should really mean how good the picture quality really is on the Blu-ray, compared to all other DVDs and Blu-ray titles? Also what if the reviewers don't have the original source to compare it to - do they ever watch the original camera negative or source side by side with the Blu-ray to see how close the Blu-ray matches it - if not - how would you really know how close it was to the source? Or there could be separate scores - one for the actual Picture Quality on Blu-ray (not taking into account the quality of the source - just how good it was compared to all other titles) and another score (1-20) for how closely it matched the source/original film - so even if the original source was really bad quality the second score could still be 20 if it matched it exactly. Last edited by 4K2K; 03-25-2010 at 07:05 PM. |
|
![]() |
#9749 | |
Blu-ray Champion
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#9750 | |
Special Member
![]() Feb 2008
Region B
|
![]() Quote:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...562&position=9 https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...562&position=4 So now, any Blu-ray shot in STANDARD DEFINITION on a cheap consumer SD camera can get 10 out of 10 for Picture Quality (or 20 out of 20 on the digitalbits scale, where the best standard definition DVD will get 10 out of 10)? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit the definition of picture Quality. It's definitely not got anything like the resolution that Blu-ray advertises (5-6 times SD resolution). The source was SD and no more (except the very end). Last edited by 4K2K; 03-25-2010 at 08:35 PM. |
|
![]() |
#9751 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
Darn tootin'!
Maybe it doesn't fit your definition... The purpose of video (and the opportunity of Blu-ray) is to best represent the art. In this case, the art (for most of the run-time) is an SD image. |
![]() |
#9752 | |
Blu-ray Champion
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#9753 | ||
Special Member
![]() Feb 2008
Region B
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by 4K2K; 03-25-2010 at 09:10 PM. |
||
![]() |
#9754 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#9755 | |||
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]() Quote:
There is of course the question whether something shot in SD needs to be released on Blu-ray, and I don't think it does. But if you just find out how it was shot prior to buying it, it can prevent possible disappointments. Quote:
Quote:
For example, let's take the Pixar movies. Ratatouille and Wall-E were made a little softer than the rest because the directors preferred them that way. Does that mean they should receive lower grades, just because they look softer? I don't know how close a Blu-ray is for every title out there. But for the titles that I do know, I read about it on the internet. Robert Harris gives a lot of insights whether certain titles look correct or not. There's a lot of information on the Digital Bits as well, and in Penton Man's thread you can find a lot too. You can also check articles of the American Cinematographer online, and there's a wealth of information on there too. |
|||
![]() |
#9756 | |
Blu-ray Ninja
|
![]() Quote:
![]() I'm anxieous to read more reviews, but I'm contemplating to just skip this release.. |
|
![]() |
#9757 |
Special Member
Oct 2007
|
![]()
That sounds more like "Transfer quality", a rating of accuracy/quality of the transfer of the original source material to Blu Ray.
Last edited by blu2; 03-26-2010 at 02:44 AM. |
![]() |
#9758 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
It's art, not an objectively measurable quantity. Beyond fidelity to the piece of art being represented, I have no idea what would (utterly in the abstract) represent good "picture quality". Every image that I've ever seen is exactly what it is, no more and no less. Unless I have some perspective on what it's supposed to look like, I have no frame of reference for whether it looks "good" or "bad". |
|
![]() |
#9759 | |
Special Member
Oct 2007
|
![]() Quote:
Unless there are some artifacts introduced by the transfer process (and why should there normally be artifacts introduced at this point?), then everything should (in theory) receive a perfect score. Perhaps review sites should really do away with these attempts at assigning ratings. Last edited by blu2; 03-26-2010 at 04:34 AM. |
|
![]() |
#9760 |
Blu-ray Champion
|
![]()
Which is why I have ignored the ratings for years, personally. A disc either accurately represents the film (as much as possible for home video at least), or it has some short comings but is still in my book watchable, or it is poorly done and is not watchable. There really isn't much else, especially ratings wise, that matters to me. FOTR is right dab in the middle of scenario 1 and 2 in my book, though I reserve the right to consider possible new information from reliable sources.
|
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
thread | Forum | Thread Starter | Replies | Last Post |
Digital Bits: Bill Gates quiet on HD DVD at CES keynote presentation | General Chat | radagast | 33 | 01-07-2008 05:17 PM |
Digital Bits and Bill Hunt's latest 2¢ on exclusive announcements | Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology | Ispoke | 77 | 01-07-2008 12:12 AM |
I love Bill Hunt! Check out The Digital Bits today! | Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology | Jack Torrance | 84 | 02-21-2007 04:05 PM |
|
|