Gladiator (2000)

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by bandit29

What about people who call it awesome?

I would suggest they are also exaggerating. It's a solid 3/5 and an upgrade over DVD. People need to show some restraint.

[Beta Man]

I'll add yet more filler to this thread......

I was reading another thread, and someone mentioned that they saw a currently un-announced movie that was playing on their HD Cable/Satellite provider, and it looked "awesome" so they can't wait for the Blu-ray release....

It's important to realize that a great looking movie on HD TV doesn't mean something like "Gladiator" won't happen again.

With that said, I don't think Gladiator looks as bad as most are claiming it to be.... but 3/5 or perhaps 3.5/5 is very fair in my opinion......

[Old Bones]

Would that be crappily awesome or awesomely crappy

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I love grain it's everywhere in the movie I'm watching right now. I just hope this isn't a sign of future blu-rays for excellent movies in the future, I like my excellent movies to have fantastic transfers.

I like grain although I do have a preference for smaller, finer grain instead of larger grain. The larger grain tends to hurt the detail of the picture. Just a couple examples that I posted over in the "Do you like grain?" thread in the Movies and TV forum:


Smaller grain in The Seventh Seal:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...774&position=2

Larger grain in The Third Man:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...195&position=6

[benricci]

Ugh, no more screenshots please!!!!

[bandit29]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

I would suggest they are also exaggerating. It's a solid 3/5 and an upgrade over DVD. People need to show some restraint.

That's pretty much my score and feelings about Gladiator on Blu. Not bad, but not great either. 3 for PQ. 4 for AQ.

[Old Bones]

3 out of 5 is 60% , Hmmmmm sounds like my high school report card

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by benricci

Ugh, no more screenshots please!!!!

lolwut?

[JJ]

I'd say 3 out of 5 is mediocre - average - run of the mill - garden variety - blase - etc.

Crap - I'd save for those with a 1 rating or less.

[aaaa6344]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...ries-blu-ray/0

Initial press release: "HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – Paramount Home Entertainment (PHE) announced today that it will release some of the greatest films ever made for the first time in high definition as part of its exclusive new “Sapphire Series”. The Sapphire Series will capitalize on the pristine picture and sound of the Blu-ray format to present each cinematic gem in the highest quality for the first time in two-disc, high definition sets"

LIES LIES LIES!!!!!!!!!!

false advertising too

i demand RECALL and REMASTER :P

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by Gremal

This is exactly wrong. Scott intended the entire second half of the battle scene to be nearly psychedellic with heavy ghost/blur effect, and therefore my analogy stands. It was an impressionistic approach to producing a battle scene--at least that part of the scene--and it negatively impacted the realism and detail of the picture in a completely intentional, deliberate way. My analogy stands.

Source? If a source can't be cited, then I will have to discount your reply.... and your analogy is still incorrect because you don't understand the intent or definition of impressionism; saying that it was an impressionistic approach to lend credence to your argument serves to reinforce this.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

The average consumer doesn't like grain, which is why the studios insist on applying DNR to their home video releases.

Exactly.... I've heard comments from people here such as "Blu-ray should be so good that there isn't any grain at all" sheesh... and this is coming from people whom I'd assume have a little better understanding of film and technology than the average consumer (since they seek out info from online forums etc)

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

Source? If a source can't be cited, then I will have to discount your reply.... and your analogy is still incorrect because you don't understand the intent or definition of impressionism; saying that it was an impressionistic approach to lend credence to your argument serves to reinforce this.

Much like Gladiator, when the price is right, I'll buy it.... although I agree with pretty much everything Gremal said as it is.......

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

Source? If a source can't be cited, then I will have to discount your reply....

Watch the movie! The battle scene goes into a dream-like sequence in which the video and even the audio is postproduced to look blurred and sound muffled--the fog of war, if you will. I had no idea simply pointing out this VERY OBVIOUS feature of the scene would be controversial or would require a "source". If you really genuinely positively don't understand what I'm talking about I will go home and identify the exact time sequence, but I'm telling you it's VERY OBVIOUS.

and your analogy is still incorrect because you don't understand the intent or definition of impressionism; saying that it was an impressionistic approach to lend credence to your argument serves to reinforce this.

Horsepucky. It is exactly as I said: an impressionistic approach to a battle sequence. Scott also uses a realistic approach earlier when you can more clearly see the battle and the limbs being hewn off.

I continue to be vexed at people who hate this BD. It vexes me. I'm terribly vexed. Some of the picture is near reference quality, like the images of Maximus in the fields. As he runs his hands over the long grain, you can literally see every fiber of the plants. It is detailed and shows good depth. But this was very light, bright footage and the more subdued, problematic scenes are more shrouded/darker.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Scott intended the entire second half of the battle scene to be nearly psychedellic with heavy ghost/blur effect

I loaded up the old HDTV capture and viewed the first 13 minutes. That's all of the battle scene, all the way to the first shot of the horse carriage.

Yes, there are some stylistic effect shots in the latter half of the battle. Some. But the entire second half? Definitely no. Even when the snowing starts and the night falls, image of the HDTV capture stays clean, sharp and detailed during regular shots. And there are plenty more of those than there are stylized shots. The blurring you see on the Blu-ray running the entire second half of the battle is not intentional, based on this HDTV broadcast.

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

I can't speak for others, but the end result is unacceptable as both a Blu-ray release and as a representative of the Sapphire Series which, according to Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, "will deliver the best pictures in the best picture".

+1.

That being said, Is the Sappire Series only going to include Paramount movies that won the BEST PICTURE Academy Awards?

I sure hope Pmount doesn't botch TITANIC like they did with GLADIATOR.

It will be interesting to see what happens with FORREST GUMP.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

Yes, there are some stylistic effect shots in the latter half of the battle. Some. But the entire second half? Definitely no. Even when the snowing starts and the night falls, image of the HDTV capture stays clean, sharp and detailed during regular shots. And there are plenty more of those than there are stylized shots. The blurring you see on the Blu-ray running the entire second half of the battle is not intentional, based on this HDTV broadcast.[/

I can see I'm going to need to specify this with time range to specify when the effect is used. It really is obvious and while "entire second half" of the battle may be overstating it, there is no doubt that heavy effects are being used during that part of the sequence and that the picture was never intended to look sharp here. It absolutely was postproduced to be intentionally stylized.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I can see I'm going to need to specify this with time range when the effect is used. It really is obvious and while "entire second half" may be overstating it, there is no doubt that heavy effects are being used and that the picture was never intended to look sharp here. It absolutely was postproduced to be intentionally stylized.

Like I said, the latter half of the battle contains a number of stylized shots. They are extremely obvious and very blurry indeed. But they are scattered around the latter half, interspersed with regular, non-stylized shots. While those regular shots look blurry and soft on Blu-ray, they do not look blurry and soft in the HDTV broadcast. That's all I am saying.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by nycomet

+1.

That being said, Is the Sappire Series only going to include Paramount movies that won the BEST PICTURE Academy Awards?

I sure hope Pmount doesn't botch TITANIC like they did with GLADIATOR.

It will be interesting to see what happens with FORREST GUMP.

Paramount is not responsible for the transfer. Universal is. Jez!!!!!

Have you watched the BD or are you relying on views posted here? It's not botched. It's just not reference quality but it is much much better than DVD.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

It's not botched. It's just not reference quality but it is much much better than DVD.

Agreed. I watched parts of it again last night, this time on a 52-inch Sony LCD and sitting much farther away than I did on the first viewing on a 50-inch plasma monitor. The longer distance to screen really worked wonders, but that's not news to anyone here.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I can see I'm going to need to specify this with time range to specify when the effect is used. It really is obvious and while "entire second half" of the battle may be overstating it, there is no doubt that heavy effects are being used during that part of the sequence and that the picture was never intended to look sharp here. It absolutely was postproduced to be intentionally stylized.

don't think you've told us how you felt overall about the PQ yet (any idea on what you'd have give it out of 5)?