Robert A. Harris lists his "quality" Blu-ray discs

[Russell_L]

Respected film archivist Robert A. Harris has just recently posted a "safe" list of what he considers "quality" Blu-ray discs on HTF:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...safe-list.html

There are a few surprises there (for me, at least) such as "The Assassination of Jesse James" being in Level 1. (I've read nothing but negative comments regarding its overly soft PQ.) Even "Patton" isn't rated as low as I thought it would be (Level 2). "Dark City" and "The Mummy" are in Level 1, even though people at AVS are having fits over what they perceive as excessive DNR and EE in those titles. Anyway, fascinating list!

[Drewza89]

He is flat out wrong on Mission: Impossible. I was very disappointed with the picture.

[alexakajeff]

Originally Posted by Drewza89

He is flat out wrong on Mission: Impossible. I was very disappointed with the picture.

I'd have to agree with it. I'm happy I didn't buy it. My friend has all three. The third one is amazing though. I'm talking about the quality.

[Drexyl666]

Originally Posted by Drewza89

He is flat out wrong on Mission: Impossible. I was very disappointed with the picture.

I agree with you on that, I coincidentally just finished watching it about 5 minutes ago and was suprised that the pq wasn't better than it was.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Drewza89

He is flat out wrong on Mission: Impossible. I was very disappointed with the picture.

Yuo have to realize what he is grading on though. His list is for those complaining of titles ruined by DNR and EE... not a grainy or soft picture, or anything else. He definitely isn't saying that the tier one titles are reference quality releases... just that they don't suffer from those specific problems.

[sockmodel7]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Yuo have to realize what he is grading on though. His list is for those complaining of titles ruined by DNR and EE... not a grainy or soft picture, or anything else. He definitely isn't saying that the tier one titles are reference quality releases... just that they don't suffer from those specific problems.

This. He's not grading picture quality, but rather how true it is to the original film.

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

Respected film archivist Robert A. Harris has just recently posted a "safe" list of what he considers "quality" Blu-ray discs on HTF:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...safe-list.html

There are a few surprises there (for me, at least) such as "The Assassination of Jesse James" being in Level 1. (I've read nothing but negative comments regarding its overly soft PQ.) Even "Patton" isn't rated as low as I thought it would be (Level 2). "Dark City" and "The Mummy" are in Level 1, even though people at AVS are having fits on what they perceive as excessive DNR and EE in those titles. Anyway, fascinating list!

The problem with AVS is that they ZOOM 400% into the picture. But from normal viewing distance thing change sometime..

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

The problem with AVS is that they ZOOM 400% into the picture. But from normal viewing distance thing change sometime..

+1

I haven't seen all of the titles on his Level 1 list, but the ones I have seen I think they fit his criteria for them which is, "Quality releases with occasional minor caveats: a bit of softness, light DNR or EE, but nothing that would affect one's overall viewing pleasure."

[Zman2k2]

The list is interesting. But it really tells me one of two things. Either AVS is overly critical of alot of releases, and need to loosen up, or when reviewed, the setup used was less than stellar.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

The problem with AVS is that they ZOOM 400% into the picture. But from normal viewing distance thing change sometime..

Not only are they zooming 400% in on the picture, but they're basing impressions on a still frame from a "motion picture." Things just don't look the same at normal screen size and 24fps than they do blown up to 400% scale and still frame.

As far as his list... the only thing I would say is that his "tier 1" is probably far too broad of a category. For example, Chicago doesn't have glaring DNR or EE applied, but 98% of the film shows no more detail than the SD DVD. The theatrical lighting, lens filters, and film stock used make for a very grainy (and at the same time soft-focused) picture, that no one would consider reference BD material. BUT... it IS true to the film, so based on his criteria it's a tier 1. Also, some of the Warner titles in his tier 1 list may not be marred by excessive DNR or EE but have been digitally scrubbed to the point that many would say they don't accurately reflect the film source.

Basically, I doubt that this list (like all those like it) is really a good idea. While I VERY much value Mr. Harris's opinion on transfer quality, trying to categorize releases into any kind of a tier system like this generally doesn't get anyone anywhere. It just causes a lot of debate that doesn't really change anything anyway.

All that said, Mr. Harris, I fully expect The Godfather Trilogy to force you to create a tier 0 in your list (if you keep it going) -- and for me to take back everything I just said about the arbitrary and subjective nature of such lists. No pressure.

[Bobby Henderson]

I was a little surprised Independence Day was included on Harris' "level one" list.

I could be wrong, but it looks an awful lot like the Blu-ray version of Independence Day was sourced from a HD video telecine dupe rather than sourced from a scanned and digital intermediate treated element.

I have that impression because their is movement in the film image, occasional dirt and blemishes, soft and even blurred looking titles and an overall soft look to the image. The video transfer on this movie rarely has any of the sharp, high definition "pop" to it I see in true, reference quality titles like No Country for Old Men or Cars.

Not many other movies in my BD collection seem sourced from HD telecine masters. American Psycho is one, but that was a free disc. It has many of the same problems as Independence Day, but also has obviously muted looking dynamic range and blacks that seem a bit gray.

[Clark Kent]

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Harris and his reputation as a professional in the film industry, but let us remember that he still currently works in it and that he probably has to mind what he speaks about any specific film. I've always taken his assessment of titles as more of guidance than a detailed review of the Blu-ray's image. But keeping that in mind I still read all of his reviews.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I was a little surprised Independence Day was included on Harris' "level one" list.

I could be wrong, but it looks an awful lot like the Blu-ray version of Independence Day was sourced from a HD video telecine dupe rather than sourced from a scanned and digital intermediate treated element.

I have that impression because their is movement in the film image, occasional dirt and blemishes, soft and even blurred looking titles and an overall soft look to the image. The video transfer on this movie rarely has any of the sharp, high definition "pop" to it I see in true, reference quality titles like No Country for Old Men or Cars.

Not many other movies in my BD collection seem sourced from HD telecine masters. American Psycho is one, but that was a free disc. It has many of the same problems as Independence Day, but also has obviously muted looking dynamic range and blacks that seem a bit gray.

I'm not sure where it was sourced, but I thought Independence Day looked decent. One thing that made me happy was there appeared to be little or no DNR as film grain was visible throughout the movie. Black levels were very rich and color rendition appeared natural. The image seemed film-like.

Not all movies will have "pop" nor can look like Cars (which is CG) or No Country.

[X400]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Not only are they zooming 400% in on the picture, but they're basing impressions on a still frame from a "motion picture." Things just don't look the same at normal screen size and 24fps than they do blown up to 400% scale and still frame.

noticed that when they started a fit about Patton during the beginning scene in front of the flag, they were going on about how you couldnt see the stars within the stars (based on the screenshot) but you could definately see them when your watching the movie

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

The problem with AVS is that they ZOOM 400% into the picture. But from normal viewing distance thing change sometime..

The only relevant vewing distance for objectively judging image quality is the one where you can resolve 1080p detail. That more and more problems disappear as you see only 720p detail and finally 480p detail while moving away or using non 1080p displays is trivial and no justification for excusing technical issues with a disk. It might not be a relevant issue for one's own viewing habits and equipment. That's all. And these can change. There was a time LD was the pinnacle of image quality...

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

Respected film archivist Robert A. Harris has just recently posted a "safe" list of what he considers "quality" Blu-ray discs on HTF:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...safe-list.html

There are a few surprises there (for me, at least) such as "The Assassination of Jesse James" being in Level 1. (I've read nothing but negative comments regarding its overly soft PQ.) Even "Patton" isn't rated as low as I thought it would be (Level 2). "Dark City" and "The Mummy" are in Level 1, even though people at AVS are having fits on what they perceive as excessive DNR and EE in those titles. Anyway, fascinating list!

Great idea, I will check the list before buying any Blu-ray movie! If Mr. Harris says so, I will just follow.

[Alan Gordon]

"Twister" is in LEVEL ONE.

I'm not going to say it's DNR, but SOMETHING was done to that movie to give it a WEIRD look.

~Alan

[Blu Titan]

I'll tell you a movie I fully agree on...The Longest Day is a disgrace! The "movie" looks like an aberration, and should have never hit the market.

[fdm]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

I'll tell you a movie I fully agree on...The Longest Day is a disgrace! The "movie" looks like an aberration, and should have never hit the market.

Wish I'd seen more comments like this before I bought it. [Watched the DVDs a few weeks before the BRs were announced, and thought I'd seen decent reviews of the BRs (how much better they were than the DVD (which were not overly high on the PQ scale))...

Oh well, should be an interesting watch one of these days (just watched Patton last night (and The Leapord (DVD) a couple of weeks ago), so my quota for 3hr films has about reached its limit for a while...

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

"Twister" is in LEVEL ONE.

I'm not going to say it's DNR, but SOMETHING was done to that movie to give it a WEIRD look.

~Alan

That movie looks like shit, i had to turn off my dynamic contrast to watch it.

same goes for face off wich is even worse.