Batman Begins (2005)

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by mredman

According to this site the PQ is very good on the HD-DVD
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/20/batmanbegins.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/24478...egins/?___rd=1

As with Superman Returns, which you've also cited as "very good" based on a 4.5 star review despite featuring obvious banding and smoothness, there is no way Batman Begins looks on par with Rambo, which also received a 4.5 star rating. Those reviews are nearly two years old and standards have changed quite a bit.

[Arecsa]

Originally Posted by captveg

So while the image quality may not be all it could be, it is enough to satisfy the main creative force behind the film, and frankly that's good enough for me.

That's my problem, with Warner in particular, and it's been the exact same problem for over a year now. The releases we're getting now are the only ones we will see for years, we shouldn't have to settle for something that's "good enough". In this case it isn't even good enough, it's crap and should have been re-done.

I'm at my wits end with Warner. The overly DNR'd, poor quality, lossless lacking releases I continue to see pumped out by them are pathetic, and they should be embarrassed with some of their efforts. No amount of feedback and criticism seems to get through, as long as they are selling discs they don't care. Keep pumping them out Warner, some people are obviously buying them.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by mredman

According to this site the PQ is very good on the HD-DVD
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/20/batmanbegins.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/24478...egins/?___rd=1

"Batman Begins" was one of my first HD DVD titles (purchased alongside "Slither", "Serenity", and "The Break-Up"). Unfortunately, the HD-A2 that I had pre-ordered kept getting delayed, so I ended up getting 11 other titles (as well as two free with my HD-A2) before I ended up getting the player.

As soon as I got the player, and hooked it up, I started looking at the PQ on some of the titles like a kid at Christmas... and I was somewhat disappointed in a way with the first few titles I had put in... as I had imagined HDM to be something other than what it actually was. As I kept putting more and more titles in, I started getting a little happier with my purchase as I realized not all titles were created equal. For instance, "Forbidden Planet", an older title looked better to me than "The Break-Up"... as the quality was far superior than what DVD could have done with the title... whereas a quick check of the DVD side of "The Break-Up" Combo HD DVD revealed only subtle differences outside of exterior shots. "Slither" for instance (which suffered, if my memory is correct, from EE) showed much more depth and detail in the night time scenes... making it look superior (compared to the DVD side).

"Batman Begins" was something that I thought looked GOOD. Some scenes like Bruce and Ducard fighting on the ice looked really good in my opinion... and other scenes showed more detail than DVD as well. However, as I got other titles on HD DVD, and later converted to Blu-ray, the title has gone considerably downhill on my list of PQ.

Fans of "Batman Begins" will be happy to have the best presentation of BB yet available on home video... (and though I have yet to hear it thanks to not having a HDMI-equipped receiver), I've heard the Dolby TrueHD track is pretty rockin' as well! However, I do believe the title could look better!

Originally Posted by captveg

I've heard from reliable sources that Christopher Nolan was directly involved with the Blu-ray, and has given it his approval. So while the image quality may not be all it could be, it is enough to satisfy the main creative force behind the film, and frankly that's good enough for me.

The Blu-ray's transfer is an exact port of the HD DVD... so I'm surprised that they they would have gotten his involvement in simply re-porting the title over to Blu-ray. Perhaps your sources are referring to the TDK preview?

~Alan

[captveg]

Well Arecsa, obviously Nolan doesn't know what his film should look like then, or he likes crap.

(Of course, one man's crap is another man's treasure. When I think of "crap", I think if VHS and 1st gen DVD releases. The worst BD release I've seen looks "poor" on a scale of realistic comparisons of home viewing experience in my book. Batman Begins on HD-DVD and the upcoming BD looks quite satisfactory to me, if not ideal. It could be 1985 and our only choice for home viewing could be a 4x3 VHS tape or LD, you know. It's all relative.)

In any case, many Warner releases pending were made alongside the HD-DVD version that will never see the light of day. This will be true through the Fall, at the very least.

Alan - I know he had final approval for the disc. Main film, menu design, IMAX featurette, everything. Now, where he actually spent his time while reviewing the disc I can't say.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by captveg

In any case, many Warner releases pending were made alongside the HD-DVD version that will never see the light of day. This will be true through the Fall, at the very least.

???????

"The Bucket List", "Fool's Gold", "Dirty Harry", etc... have all been verified to have higher bitrates than HD DVD was capable of. Are you referring to the "catch-up" titles like "The Matrix", "The Adventures Of Robin Hood", etc.?

Originally Posted by captveg

Alan - I know he had final approval for the disc. Main film, menu design, IMAX featurette, everything. Now, where he actually spent his time while reviewing the disc I can't say.

I assume the menu design would be the same as the HD DVD as well (other than the addition of the TDK preview in the SF section)... so I'm just surprised at this.

~Alan

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

"The Bucket List", "Fool's Gold", "Dirty Harry", etc... have all been verified to have higher bitrates than HD DVD was capable of. Are you referring to the "catch-up" titles like "The Matrix", "The Adventures Of Robin Hood", etc.?

Certainly not all, as those examples indicate. But, aside from the catch-up titles, there are at least four upcoming releases I am aware of that had HD-DVD counterparts as they were in the final phases of production or already finished when the Warner announcement happened.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by captveg

Certainly not all, as those examples indicate. But, aside from the catch-up titles, there are at least four upcoming releases I am aware of that had HD-DVD counterparts as they were in the final phases of production or already finished when the Warner announcement happened.

I've felt for a while that "The Shawshank Redemption" would be one of those...

~Alan

[WickyWoo]

Certainly not all, as those examples indicate. But, aside from the catch-up titles, there are at least four upcoming releases I am aware of that had HD-DVD counterparts as they were in the final phases of production or already finished when the Warner announcement happened.

This is correct. There are at least 4, maybe more especially on catalog titles

Anything that was on HD DVD but not Blu will be a plain and simple port

[Blu-Malibu2009]

I think the HD DVD looks great and I am glad I've owned it for quite a while. I'm hoping someone can rip the Prologue from the Blu-ray and put it on a torrent or something. Stick that sucker on my PS3 and I'd be good to go.

[Windmill McGill]

I'm still definitely buying this! Great movie and I can settle with the HD-DVD port transfer. I saw it as a demo at some electronics store awhile back for the HD-DVD player and stuff. It looked decent to me So stoked about The Dark Knight! Can't wait.

[mredman]

I say the same thing windmill. Some people on this board want the impossible and are way to nitpicky about stuff that it seems they will never be satisfied

[Marine Mike]

As I've increased my audio equipment, the more and more I stop caring about PQ as much. I just finished Men in Black and the PQ on it was very very good. The soundtrack was quite ordinary, but definately better then Fool's Gold that I watched last night.

The thing was, was that while I was enjoying the movie, it felt like something was lacking and was just waiting to just burst out like the alien in the chest from the movie Alien.

My point (possibly a weak one) is that a movie nowadays on BD good PQ is standard and the ones that are shining more in my book are ones with the spectacular AQ that really put my equipment to work.

Therefore I think that as long as Batman Begins delivers superior sound with decent PQ then I'll be satisfied.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by mredman

I say the same thing windmill. Some people on this board want the impossible and are way to nitpicky about stuff that it seems they will never be satisfied

How is it impossible to not use DNR and provide a disc that takes advantage of Blu-ray's capabilities? Aside from the financial commitment it's pretty easy.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Windmill McGill

I'm still definitely buying this! Great movie and I can settle with the HD-DVD port transfer. I saw it as a demo at some electronics store awhile back for the HD-DVD player and stuff. It looked decent to me So stoked about The Dark Knight! Can't wait.

Well, obviously you didn't see the clip from the Blu-ray demo, encoded in MPEG2 at very high bitrates. Stunning detail, shadow detail, the image looked very 3-D. The HD DVD is flat in direct comparison. I high bitrate encode using the same transfer would have been stunning. Merely being better than the DVD doesn't cut it when it could be so much better.

[Arecsa]

Originally Posted by captveg

I know he had final approval for the disc. Main film, menu design, IMAX featurette, everything. Now, where he actually spent his time while reviewing the disc I can't say.

Nolan must have fallen asleep approving the menu and all of the extras before he got to watch the HD DVD port we're getting.

Getting director's approval on this particular title still doesn't excuse the rest of the failures Warner continue to produce. Their continued use of excessive DNR on absolutely everything is disgusting, as is the unwillingness to consistently include a lossless track on all releases.

[WickyWoo]

More likely he worked in creating the original bonus materials, and he had director's approval over the film-DI transfer

HOWEVER, there is no guarantee that he approved the final disc, in fact it would be unlikely and unusual for him to do so. Since the BLu is simply a port of the HD DVD with the addition of the Dark Knight clip, it's unlikely he would have gone out of his way to work on that since it's simply a rehash

I think the OP is confusing that mastering privilege with the actual involvement

[Windmill McGill]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, obviously you didn't see the clip from the Blu-ray demo, encoded in MPEG2 at very high bitrates. Stunning detail, shadow detail, the image looked very 3-D. The HD DVD is flat in direct comparison. I high bitrate encode using the same transfer would have been stunning. Merely being better than the DVD doesn't cut it when it could be so much better.

I saw it before I owned a HDTV myself or BD player so it looked damn good to me dude. I still think it looked good haha I guess I don't notice a lot of things a lot of you guys find wrong with some PQ and stuff. But yeah I can sorta see what all you guys are saying but all I'm saying is I'll deal and take whatever they give me haha I don't see why they dont use the best Technology to transfer there "Bigger" named films. Pretty stupid.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

More likely he worked in creating the original bonus materials, and he had director's approval over the film-DI transfer

HOWEVER, there is no guarantee that he approved the final disc, in fact it would be unlikely and unusual for him to do so. Since the BLu is simply a port of the HD DVD with the addition of the Dark Knight clip, it's unlikely he would have gone out of his way to work on that since it's simply a rehash

I think the OP is confusing that mastering privilege with the actual involvement

I've always wondered about that.

I've argued with Paramount reps on some of the early LD transfers that they claimed had "Director Approval" yet when they were remastered for DVD they were color timed a lot differently. I also wonder about the setup and what/how long the director actually sees the video version.

At a meeting Nick Meyer actually referred to the "scope" ratio of Star Trek VI, yet it's matted 2:1 on disc (the ONLY Trek film in that oddball ratio, and the ONLY Trek film shot Super35). They also cranked up the contrast and brightness quite a bit. Theatrically it's a very dark film, and the starship shots by ILM look stunning. They lose quite a bit of realism on the video version with the contrast cranked to the max.

Star Trek II, III, Generations were all corrected on the SE DVDs for the proper light levels where the earlier versions were not. VI looks better but does not replicate the theatrical experience. I wonder what Paramount will do for the BD versions next year.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by captveg

I know he had final approval for the disc. Main film, menu design, IMAX featurette, everything. Now, where he actually spent his time while reviewing the disc I can't say.

He didn't actually sit down and approve every aspect of the disc, what actually happened was he made a list of extras he wanted on the Blu-ray and WB complied. They didn't even want the Dark Knight footage on the BD release, but Nolan pushed it through.

The movie transfer itself is just the HD DVD, and I suspect he was given final master approval for that and since it isn't changing his approval is still valid.

I'll tell you one thing though, it wouldn't matter how much they raised bitrates on this release, it would still look like a soft mess.

[degas]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I'll tell you one thing though, it wouldn't matter how much they raised bitrates on this release, it would still look like a soft mess.

Why is that?