Picture Quality.

[dipset420]

i havent watched a whole blu-ray movie i only saw a few minutes of movies at bestbuy on their tv's. anyway i want to know if there is a huge differnece in picture quality's for some movies.
because they had superman returns and it was good quality but could of been better i noticed it being grainy. and then the other day when i returned my ps3 they had the brothers grimm playing on the same tv and blu-ray player as superman returns was on the last time i had went.
and the PQ on that movie was the best i had seen. there was no grainy picture or nothing it was perfect.

so is there that much of a differnece between some movies??

also the tv i plan on buying is going to be 50 inch or smaller so would it be better to get a 1080p set or not

[john_1958]

all hometheatre stores don't have their tvs fine tuned to their highest quality
so yes it all depends on the TV set not just the DVD

yes get a 1080p set because not all HDTVS are considered HD some only do 1280x720p so you lose picture quality as 1080 is downconverted to 720p

[Chad Varnadore]

There's that much difference between discs, but more importantly you should know that there's that much difference between films. Many films are going to look grainy. Grain is a natural artifact of film and if no resolution is lost from the mastering and authoring stages, it'll still be visible to the degree that was intended. Grimm has grain too, but it's not as dense as SR, which may have been altered to better suit the first two films that the story follows.

That said, as you've already witnessed, there are much "better" looking discs out there than SR, even though SR may be faithful to the look the DP was going for.

[nobody]

Originally Posted by dipset420

i havent watched a whole blu-ray movie i only saw a few minutes of movies at bestbuy on their tv's. anyway i want to know if there is a huge differnece in picture quality's for some movies.
because they had superman returns and it was good quality but could of been better i noticed it being grainy. and then the other day when i returned my ps3 they had the brothers grimm playing on the same tv and blu-ray player as superman returns was on the last time i had went.
and the PQ on that movie was the best i had seen. there was no grainy picture or nothing it was perfect.

so is there that much of a differnece between some movies??

also the tv i plan on buying is going to be 50 inch or smaller so would it be better to get a 1080p set or not

The Xbox 360 is better...think about it!

[KenThompson]

I bought the wife a xbox 360 for Christmas last year and let me just say its nothing special.

[KenThompson]

Superman returns was a 4.5 star rating at HD Digest. So something is not right in your set up.

[GTP]

Superman Returns is a 3/5 star at most release.
It looks flat with no detail....and is easily outdone for detail by numerous sd dvd's played back on top players.

Its tier 3 at best IMO.

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by KenThompson

Superman returns was a 4.5 star rating at HD Digest. So something is not right in your set up.

The only way SR might qualify a 4.5 rating is from the perspective that the look of the disc is innate to the look of the film. It seems to be based on the theatrical experience I went to also. But, theatrical showings have all too often proven not to be the best indicators of what a films visual design is capable of. And there has been some controversy as to whether SR does look as good as it did in some digital theaters. Relative to the detail found in many other discs, SR is at best a 3.5 and that might be a little generous. I don't deduct in my reviews for grain unless it appears exaggerated by the encoding.

I won't go into my thoughts on Peter's ability to evaluate home video or the films they're derived from. Suffice it to say, I never turned to him when he was reviewing DVDs for DVDfile either. But, he can spin an eloquent yarn. Dan Ramer who still reviews there does a nice job though. We use a much more revealing and IMO reliable system in our evaluations than Peter. Based on some of Peter's reviews that I've read, it appears he still has some color decoder issues with his display in need of address or he's not feeding the display the optimal colorspace. We have made the effort to try to know the technologies involved to attempt to remove or at least understand how the components and environment may bias perception of the software being judged in the event that it's not something we can address thru calibration, as every display type has design limitations that can't be avoided or removed thru optimal calibration. But sometimes if you know enough about those limitations and are equiped with an understanding of the dynamics of the technologies at work, you can remove them from the chain temporarily for more accurate evaluation. If Peter's system and apparent knowledge base is consistent with your own, I'm sure most of what he says will seem more accurate to your own impressions though.

BTW that last bit was not intended to be in any way demeaning of yourself or your equipment.

[KenThompson]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

The only way SR might qualify a 4.5 rating is from the perspective that the look of the disc is innate to the look of the film. It seems to be based on the theatrical experience I went to also. But, theatrical showings have all too often proven not to be the best indicators of what a films visual design is capable of. And there has been some controversy as to whether SR does look as good as it did in some digital theaters. Relative to the detail found in many other discs, SR is at best a 3.5 and that might be a little generous. I don't deduct in my reviews for grain unless it appears exaggerated by the encoding.

I won't go into my thoughts on Peter's ability to evaluate home video or the films they're derived from. Suffice it to say, I never turned to him when he was reviewing DVDs for DVDfile either. But, he can spin an eloquent yarn. Dan Ramer who still reviews there does a nice job though. We use a much more revealing and IMO reliable system in our evaluations than Peter. Based on some of Peter's reviews that I've read, it appears he still has some color decoder issues with his display in need of address or he's not feeding the display the optimal colorspace. We have made the effort to try to know the technologies involved to attempt to remove or at least understand how the components and environment may bias perception of the software being judged in the event that it's not something we can address thru calibration, as every display type has design limitations that can't be avoided or removed thru optimal calibration. But sometimes if you know enough about those limitations and are equiped with an understanding of the dynamics of the technologies at work, you can remove them from the chain temporarily for more accurate evaluation. If Peter's system and apparent knowledge base is consistent with your own, I'm sure most of what he says will seem more accurate to your own impressions though.

BTW that last bit was not intended to be in any way demeaning of yourself or your equipment.

On your own website and review you gave Superman Returns a 4 star rating. So I'm just going by what the sites are saying. I'm no expert so thats why I check and see what they are saying.

[Chad Varnadore]

Thanks for noticing. Relative to other films I'd give SR a 3-3.5 in PQ. However, in the review I gave Warner the benefit of the doubt that the look of the disc is innate to the visual design, which is why I scored it a 4 at the time. Since then I've learned some things about the film itself that would make me hesitant to score it quite as high.

But, a score is a very vague indicator that can be biased toward perception of the films delivery on the disc or biased toward the personal preference in what looks good to the individual reviewer, or a combination of both. I look at the text as being my actual review. That's where I try to describe with more clarity what I see and hear. The score is just a mandatory and expected part of the review format.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by nobody

The Xbox 360 is better...think about it!

I thought about it, since I own both a 360 and a PS3.

Nope.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Thanks for noticing. Relative to other films I'd give SR a 3-3.5 in PQ. However, in the review I gave Warner the benefit of the doubt that the look of the disc is innate to the visual design, which is why I scored it a 4 at the time. Since then I've learned some things about the film itself that would make me hesitant to score it quite as high.

People started saying things like "well, it was shot on HD cameras, what can you expect?"

Umm, Crank?! Shouldn't a franchise movie from Warner have at least equalled the PQ of a small studio's R-rated action romp?

VC-1 v. MPEG-2... hmmm....

[KenThompson]

Just for the record I don't own Superman Returns nor have I seen it.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

People started saying things like "well, it was shot on HD cameras, what can you expect?"

Umm, Crank?! Shouldn't a franchise movie from Warner have at least equalled the PQ of a small studio's R-rated action romp?

VC-1 v. MPEG-2... hmmm....

Yeah HD cameras are good at shooting HD in theory lol

I understood that Superman Returns was shot at a higher resolution than 1080p could display?

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Relative to other films I'd give SR a 3-3.5 in PQ. However, in the review I gave Warner the benefit of the doubt that the look of the disc is innate to the visual design, which is why I scored it a 4 at the time. Since then I've learned some things about the film itself that would make me hesitant to score it quite as high.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

People started saying things like "well, it was shot on HD cameras, what can you expect?"

Umm, Crank?! Shouldn't a franchise movie from Warner have at least equalled the PQ of a small studio's R-rated action romp?

VC-1 v. MPEG-2... hmmm....

To me it should have looked like this.


But we got this...

.

[JohnnyBluRay]

Yeah SR was a little soft in picture. Colors seemed off too. MI III looked better than SR.

[JohnnyBluRay]

I just remembered, on the PS3 you can set it to play movies either at a low FPS or i think 30 FPS (frames per sec) Would that make a difference?

[gmz]

Maybe somebody can shed some light for me, with regards to certain titles on blu ray being of better quality than others. Some titles are considered reference standard ie: that show off the best picture quality that blu ray has to offer in 1080p, and others are not up to standard and are of poorer quality than most hddvd. Why is that? And how does one figure out which titles are the good ones on blu ray?

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by gmz

Maybe somebody can shed some light for me, with regards to certain titles on blu ray being of better quality than others. Some titles are considered reference standard ie: that show off the best picture quality that blu ray has to offer in 1080p, and others are not up to standard and are of poorer quality than most hddvd. Why is that? And how does one figure out which titles are the good ones on blu ray?

I shall entertain this question even though it sounds trollish. BTW, Blu-ray has better overall PQ than HD DVD. So, to say others Blu-ray titles are poorer quality than most HD DVDs is completely incorrect.

PQ varies on titles of ALL HIGH-DEF FORMATS because they are all shot and processed in different ways. Typically, if the movie budget is low, you should expect a less than impressive transfer to high-def.

That's the short of it!

[Deciazulado]

Hi gmz, welcome to the forum. Please use the Search function before starting a new thread.

We already had a thread called "Picture Quality"

So I've sent your post here.

Also, a couple of recent threads have touched a little upon things that influence PQ too:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5486

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5593