Gladiator (2000)

[Penton-Man]

^
More reading for you in regards to static vs motion -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=10513

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
More reading for you in regards to static vs motion -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=10513

So the Casino Royale BD, in motion, looks as good as the master. Fair enough.

That would be relevant if Casino Royale showed a lot of DNR and edge enhancement on its screenshots but not on the BD. But that is not the case. Actually, most of the screenshots I've seen of CR are pretty damn impressive.

Coming back to Gladiator, there are several indications of excessive DNR, such as the spear head becoming translucent, and arrows disappearing. Also, similar shots from the theatrical and extended versions look different, with the shots from the extended versions looking far more detailed and natural. All signs point in the same direction.




Remember the Star Trek Original Motion Picture Collection? This happened almost word-for-word (I didn't take part in that because I couldn't care less about the Trek movies). Some people got the BDs early and said some of the movies looked soft and digital. Others said you couldn't pass judgment on screenshots. Then reviews came in (including on this very site) and indeed, The Wrath of Khan looked very good whereas The Search for Spock didn't.

And may I remind you what you posted on that occasion:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In terms of your question [Why do the studios keep screwing the consumer...why the short cuts?], I haven't seen any of the movies in this set but, from what I have read, I'm thinking that an economic decision was made by Paramount not to go back to the original or available film elements of each of these Star Trek movies to procure at least a 2k scan followed by a subsequent modern day HD master derived from those digital files.

I imagine they thought that it was not worth the expense at this time. Trek fans will have to make their own personal decisions as to whether the Blu-ray versions are enough of an upgrade from the old DVD editions to warrant a purchase.

All of the above applies here, mutatis mutandis. I bet that the newly-inserted scenes were mastered in 2004-2005 (the Extended Edition DVD came out in August 2005), whereas the rest of the movie comes from an old master and Paramount hasn't deemed it fit to go to the expense of remastering that too.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
More reading for you in regards to static vs motion -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=10513

Thanks again! But I would still like to know your informed opinion about just one example, namely the shots I put into this post. Already before reading the links you gave me I was well aware that grain patterns can vary greatly from frame to frame so it is indeed important to use samples of the exact same frame if any comparison is to be done in the first place. Unfortunately in this case it is just not possible because part of that particular scene can only be viewed in the theatrical version whereas the other part can only be viewed in the extended version. As can be safely assumed, both shots were made during the same filming session with the same camera, the same lighting conditions and obviously the same face. Still, whereas the second shot displays a grain pattern and pores, the first shot shows practically no grain pattern at all and detail looks smeared consistently on all parts of the face. From your experience, can a difference as clearly visible as this be explained merely by the fact that it's not the same frame, or do we have to suspect AVS tinkering here? Another option would of course be that the difference is indeed consistent with the experience of some people who already viewed the disc and reported the same faults in one of the threads you advised me to read. Mind you, if that last thing turned out to be the case I wouldn't conclude from this that screenshots are therefore completely legitimate in determining PQ. The threads you gave me made that clear enough.

[Big Z]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

As for using screencaps to determine purchases - I find this to work well enough. The Dark Knight screencaps showed Edge Enhancement - and, sure enough, there they were - bugging the hell out of me. I bought it anyway, because I wanted to own the film. In the case of Gladiator, I already do.

I'm new and still trying to gauge my ability to actually see half the problems people are referencing (DNR or EE).

I thought the dark knight looked sweet in blu and as far as how EE affected it... not sure I'd know EE even if Heath Ledger himself asked "arrrre you serious?" and pointed it out to me.

I think now I have surely been sold on Gladiator. If it is on the quality level of Dark Knight or above...that's cool with me.

Ignorance is bliss. Something I live by in very few areas of my life. But this is one of them.

[Jack Burton]

I do'nt mind DNR that much as long as it does not indrude but from all the caps i've seen and the people who have the film and The dvdbeaver review completly changing his stance,then this looks like a complete cock up.
What it does do though is make me loves films like The Curse of the black Pearl and many others were you can see every pour in Depps face even under a load of make up.
I watched Star Trek 2 the other night and in every scene with Kirk's face the Dnr was awful.This was suppose to be the best of the bunch and i could only afford one, and if this is the best then i will pass on the rest.Cannot find a scene were Kirk at any point looks natural.

[Big Z]

Can we stop referencing the flaming arrows...

The two "caps" being compared are not the same frame. They may be "close to the same" but if you REALLY compare them. They are not.

Now, when a flaming arrow is flying at a high velocity away from you and it's starting point is..ehh...over a 100 yds away.... things will happen.

(1) The arrow will get lost in the brown background of the woods.
(2) More importantly, the "flame" of the flaming arrow is what's making the arrows so visible in the first place. From one frame to the next is all it takes for that flame to be flickering in the wind as it fly's at whatever speed an arrow flies at.

Think about the accuracy of the subject you are basing your opinions on...

an arrow (maybe 1/2 inch thick)
over 100 yds away
flying at arrow speeds
flying away from you
with an unfavorable background
on two very very close caps (but not identical)
and even if the caps were...it's an arrow...

Please repeat until this has sunk in.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Big Z

I'm new and still trying to gauge my ability to actually see half the problems people are referencing (DNR or EE).

I thought the dark knight looked sweet in blu and as far as how EE affected it... not sure I'd know EE even if Heath Ledger himself asked "arrrre you serious?" and pointed it out to me.

I think now I have surely been sold on Gladiator. If it is on the quality level of Dark Knight or above...that's cool with me.

Ignorance is bliss. Something I live by in very few areas of my life. But this is one of them.

Originally Posted by Big Z

Can we stop referencing the flaming arrows...

The two "caps" being compared are not the same frame. They may be "close to the same" but if you REALLY compare them. They are not.

Now, when a flaming arrow is flying at a high velocity away from you and it's starting point is..ehh...over a 100 yds away.... things will happen.

(1) The arrow will get lost in the brown background of the woods.
(2) More importantly, the "flame" of the flaming arrow is what's making the arrows so visible in the first place. From one frame to the next is all it takes for that flame to be flickering in the wind as it fly's at whatever speed an arrow flies at.

Think about the accuracy of the subject you are basing your opinions on...

an arrow (maybe 1/2 inch thick)
over 100 yds away
flying at arrow speeds
flying away from you
with an unfavorable background
on two very very close caps (but not identical)
and even if the caps were...it's an arrow...

Please repeat until this has sunk in.

First you say ignorance is bliss and now you're arguing physics and ballistics?

Either you don't want to know, or you do. Choose one.

[Big Z]

Originally Posted by Big Z

Ignorance is bliss. Something I live by in very few areas of my life. But this is one of them (the area of Bluray).

As for ballistics...I am no expert. But my not so common, common sense says that a little thing, moving VERY fast, a long ways away, amongst like colors = hard to see at times.

Yes? No? Maybe?

[MaCruz]

I'm going to use my $10 Best Buy GC that I got for buying Madden 10 and use it towards both movies on release day.

[Blu-Benny]

only 1 more week to go!!!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

I watched Star Trek 2 the other night and in every scene with Kirk's face the Dnr was awful.This was suppose to be the best of the bunch and i could only afford one, and if this is the best then i will pass on the rest.Cannot find a scene were Kirk at any point looks natural.

Sorry, but this is incorrect as TREK II is one of the better transfers of the series.

I believe you're mistaking *makeup* for DNR. I just watched the film again not 3 days ago (to listen to the Meyer/Coto commentary) and while I felt certain shots were too dark, DNR was never an issue with that transfer.

[Jeff Kleist]

Trek 2 was definatley not DNR'd. It received a full modern standards restoration.

The rest were retransferred before current Paramount mastering policies were put into place, so while they were indeed NEW transfers, they weren't new enough, and by the time that was figured out it was too late to go back and redo it because they'd miss their window for release

[robertc88]

I don't understand why anyone would buy Gladiator BD blind to the quality at this point even after opinions have been provided by folks who actually have the BD and viewed it. There isn't even any professional reviews to go by, so strike two but I don't think they will see things differently. Buy anything blindly then if you like the film I suppose and pay the premium on release day. Unless of course you don't have the SD DVD perhaps is a reason but most do and why wouldn't you if you like the movie to begin with?

I'm waiting till I view it via rental. Why wouldn't I even if the extras and the AQ delivers? I may even just wait for a better price thereafter.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by robertc88

I don't understand why anyone would buy Gladiator BD blind to the quality at this point even after opinions have been provided by folks who actually have the BD and viewed it. There isn't even any professional reviews to go by, so strike two but I don't think they will see things differently. Buy anything blindly then if you like the film I suppose and pay the premium on release day. Unless of course you don't have the SD DVD perhaps is a reason but most do and why wouldn't you if you like the movie to begin with?

I'm waiting till I view it via rental. Why wouldn't I even if the extras and the AQ delivers? I may even just wait for a better price thereafter.

For me, it's easier to accept a less than perfect job on a movie since I don't own that many DVD's. I don't really know why, but I didn't start collecting movies on this scale until I started buying Blu-Rays. I realize this puts me in the extreme minority, but I still say what I said before that if you really want the movie, a less than stellar job on the PQ shouldn't keep you from buying it even if the studio should have done a better job. I respect both sides of this, but a person is not wrong for buying Gladiator if they really want it regardless of the PQ issues.

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I respect both sides of this, but a person is not wrong for buying Gladiator if they really want it regardless of the PQ issues.

I have to agree with that and would even exchange the but for and.

[Dave_6]

I think I've decided that I'm going to hold off on getting this one on day one. I'll wait until it's under $20 or even $15 to pick it up. I've got the 2-disc Signature Series DVD that I haven't watched that much lately anyways.

[Elandyll]

At this point I'm going to wait for the HDD & Blu-Ray.com review for my buy of Gladiator, but I heard about another thing that sort of worries me (slightly).

There is word of a 1.85 version that present more screen than the officially approved 2.35 version, and I have seen screen grabs of this (the 1.85 would have been shown as the HDTV version).

Is it true, and if so, why not proposing either both versions, or the one with the maximum amoung of screen (and would fit 16:9 screen better anyway?).

Director's wish? If so, why the 1.85 filming, and the 1.85 HDTV version?

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

There is word of a 1.85 version that present more screen than the officially approved 2.35 version, and I have seen screen grabs of this (the 1.85 would have been shown as the HDTV version).

Is it true, and if so, why not proposing either both versions, or the one with the maximum amoung of screen (and would fit 16:9 screen better anyway?).

Director's wish? If so, why the 1.85 filming, and the 1.85 HDTV version?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=72428

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Grubert

And may I remind you what you posted on that occasion:

I remember exactly what I posted in the past concerning the Star Trek series and I stand by the comment which you bolded at the end.

Apparently, you don’t remember what I posted yesterday on the previous page………

“I’ve already received several P.M.’s complaining that you’re carrying this anti-Braveheart campaign to other forums besides Blu-ray.com which strikes me as an agenda, rather than stating your observation and moving on. Also, if you think you can strong-arm Paramount into recalling Braveheart or reissuing a more visually pleasing disc at least to your eyes, or have them implement a change in their technological or business practices, I’ll tell you right now that it won’t work and you’re becoming a nuisance by trying so here. If you think you can shame people here that are fans of the movie into not purchasing it because it doesn’t meet your standards……..that is nothing to be proud of either.”

Grubert, what I dislike about this matter is the hyperbole and persistent physiological campaigning by some *non-purchasers* to try to convince fans of the film to avoid purchasing the title because it doesn’t meet their personal expectations.

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

There is word of a 1.85 version that present more screen than the officially approved 2.35 version, and I have seen screen grabs of this (the 1.85 would have been shown as the HDTV version).

Is it true, and if so, why not proposing either both versions, or the one with the maximum amoung of screen (and would fit 16:9 screen better anyway?).