How do you rate Picture Quality? Objectively or Subjectively?

[Eternalnow]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

First of all some of the older movies need work to get them in decent shape. A lot of people were really upset at the Longest Day, and I have seen the comparisons with the overuse of DNR; however, with the exception of one scene, I thought the movie looked excellent. I also have no problems with the look of Patton, but the soundtrack has a very low buzzing that drives me crazy.

That being said, it is all subjective for me. I know that older movies will require compromises to improve the visuals. That is fine with me as long as they do not remove grain that was intentional. Assassination of Jesse James was supposed to look the way it was. 28 Days Later was also the director's intent to be grainy. That is fine, keep it that way, but I know that concessions will have to be made in the older titles.

Most of the movies that I have seen in the theater look better on Blu-ray than they did in the theater. Almost all of the movies that I have seen certainly have sounded better than in the theater. If all are released exactly as they were in the theater, I would have to watch a lot of movies in 1.0 sound. I don't want that. If removing defects from the film makes an image look a little flat, then that is OK. But please don't go overboard.

Oh yeah, when I saw the first seven minutes of The Dark Knight in the theater it looked really dark and blurry compared to the eye-popping 7 minute teaser on the Batman Begin's Blu Ray release.